# Self-driving Taxis Will Become the Most Disgusting Spaces on Earth



## jocker12

With the entire automotive industry looking toward a future of driverless mobility, commercially owned self-driving taxis seem poised to be on the frontline of tomorrow. However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.

Animals are universally disgusting and humans are no exception. While we've mastered land, air, and sea, consider the spaces we occupy while we traverse those expanses. Rental cars are returned filled with *candy wrappers, spilt soda, and human hair*. Uber vehicles are *routinely vomited in*. The subway is a *haven for disease*. Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.

Autonomous taxis aren't likely to endure better treatment. Without a driver present, *the urge to have drunken sex will be far too strong* - and those odds only increase when you add a second occupant to the equation. With nobody watching, we'll leave *half-consumed hamburgers and cans of sweetened tea on their floors that will roll around and turn the carpet into a sticky magnet for larger pieces of garbage*.

_Bloomberg_ speculates the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will cost large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually. *That number swells into the billions* when you account for insurance, maintenance, storage, and the accelerated devaluation of such vehicles.

Uber is desperate to make the switch to driverless vehicles as soon as technology allows it, but abandoning the vehicle's owner could result in unforeseen costs. Since drivers are responsible for their own cars, Uber's policy is to force passengers who make a mess to foot the cleaning bill. This often results in drivers paying it themselves, especially when there isn't a standout vomiting incident allowing for easy finger pointing. However, even when there is, it's notoriously difficult to actually force someone to pay and often times not worth pursuing.

Other firms, like Avis' ZipCar, have seen their fleets used and abused to a point where it has become difficult to keep up with the necessary cleaning. Its vehicles are stored in various locations throughout multiple cities and can change hands hourly. Finding someone to routinely assure they're clean inside is next to impossible.

Traditional rental companies spend anywhere from $100 to $300 per vehicle each month while maintaining their fleet. For hourly rentals, that fee is much less predictable.

General Motors' Maven arm, which competes with Zipcar and leases vehicles to both Uber and Lyft drivers, has begun studying how much abuse ride-share vehicles take. In addition to the wear, tear, and grime left in the wake of inconsiderate customers, the costs for parking and insurance will be significant - especially in the major metropolitan areas where such services are more popular.

Peter Kosak, GM's executive director of urban mobility, has said that Maven's goal is to provide consumers access to a diverse lineup of vehicles while still making sure it feels akin to ownership. *That illusion* is tainted the second someone finds another person's greasy fingerprints on the steering wheel. That's a new problem, one which will proliferate as community cars become more popular.

Lyft's co-founder John Zimmer recently referred to personal vehicle ownership as "a ball and chain that gets dragged through our daily life." He believes car ownership will be all but abandoned in major U.S. cities by 2025. While few are willing to plot a timeline quite so ambitious as Zimmer's, ride-sharing_ has_ become more common. However, it won't become ubiquitous until manufacturers can make the numbers work and drivers/riders can be assured a sanitary experience. Likewise, a plan has to be put in place to keep autonomous vehicles, with nobody to look out for them, from becoming* roving toxic waste dumps*.

"Lyft and Uber don't care about managing the fleet," said Kosak. "Down the road, you'll need to dictate who does all of that."

From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...l-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/

"How to deal with vomit represents one of many great unanswered questions about the *mythic business model* that Kalanick once summed up as, basically, getting rid of "the other dude in the car." In the future he and Lyft co-founder John Zimmer have described, apps and bots do the work, consumers save big time and investors just rake it in. But number-crunchers at GM and companies including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo are adding up a lot of costs that will get in the way of robotaxis being cash cows."

"It is a really big issue and no one has figured it out," said Mark Wakefield, co-head of the global automotive practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners. "No one is even betting on the outcome."

"What might the rental companies charge? They typically deal with *depreciation of more than $300 per car every month*; Hertz has $10 billion in vehicles on its books and depreciates them to the tune of $2 billion a year. *Add in cleaning and maintenance, and the total may be $400 to $600 per a month*, Wakefield said."

From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-problem-there-s-no-one-to-clean-up-the-mess


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4

I believe it...

I've predicted it


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhahahaha! SO FUNNY!

Now we're all defecating in airline seats!!!!

I've flown hundreds of times and never once saw or heard of a single person defecating. Never. Where is all of this "havoc" you speak of?

Amazing. Really sad, but amazing.

Make mess, pay fee, profit center. Please make more messes, we like money.

"_..._the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will earn large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually."

FIFY


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> With the entire automotive industry looking toward a future of driverless mobility, commercially owned self-driving taxis seem poised to be on the frontline of tomorrow. However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.
> 
> Animals are universally disgusting and humans are no exception. While we've mastered land, air, and sea, consider the spaces we occupy while we traverse those expanses. Rental cars are returned filled with *candy wrappers, spilt soda, and human hair*. Uber vehicles are *routinely vomited in*. The subway is a *haven for disease*. Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.
> 
> Autonomous taxis aren't likely to endure better treatment. Without a driver present, *the urge to have drunken sex will be far too strong* - and those odds only increase when you add a second occupant to the equation. With nobody watching, we'll leave *half-consumed hamburgers and cans of sweetened tea on their floors that will roll around and turn the carpet into a sticky magnet for larger pieces of garbage*.
> 
> _Bloomberg_ speculates the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will cost large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually. *That number swells into the billions* when you account for insurance, maintenance, storage, and the accelerated devaluation of such vehicles.
> 
> Uber is desperate to make the switch to driverless vehicles as soon as technology allows it, but abandoning the vehicle's owner could result in unforeseen costs. Since drivers are responsible for their own cars, Uber's policy is to force passengers who make a mess to foot the cleaning bill. This often results in drivers paying it themselves, especially when there isn't a standout vomiting incident allowing for easy finger pointing. However, even when there is, it's notoriously difficult to actually force someone to pay and often times not worth pursuing.
> 
> Other firms, like Avis' ZipCar, have seen their fleets used and abused to a point where it has become difficult to keep up with the necessary cleaning. Its vehicles are stored in various locations throughout multiple cities and can change hands hourly. Finding someone to routinely assure they're clean inside is next to impossible.
> 
> Traditional rental companies spend anywhere from $100 to $300 per vehicle each month while maintaining their fleet. For hourly rentals, that fee is much less predictable.
> 
> General Motors' Maven arm, which competes with Zipcar and leases vehicles to both Uber and Lyft drivers, has begun studying how much abuse ride-share vehicles take. In addition to the wear, tear, and grime left in the wake of inconsiderate customers, the costs for parking and insurance will be significant - especially in the major metropolitan areas where such services are more popular.
> 
> Peter Kosak, GM's executive director of urban mobility, has said that Maven's goal is to provide consumers access to a diverse lineup of vehicles while still making sure it feels akin to ownership. *That illusion* is tainted the second someone finds another person's greasy fingerprints on the steering wheel. That's a new problem, one which will proliferate as community cars become more popular.
> 
> Lyft's co-founder John Zimmer recently referred to personal vehicle ownership as "a ball and chain that gets dragged through our daily life." He believes car ownership will be all but abandoned in major U.S. cities by 2025. While few are willing to plot a timeline quite so ambitious as Zimmer's, ride-sharing_ has_ become more common. However, it won't become ubiquitous until manufacturers can make the numbers work and drivers/riders can be assured a sanitary experience. Likewise, a plan has to be put in place to keep autonomous vehicles, with nobody to look out for them, from becoming* roving toxic waste dumps*.
> 
> "Lyft and Uber don't care about managing the fleet," said Kosak. "Down the road, you'll need to dictate who does all of that."
> 
> From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...l-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
> 
> "How to deal with vomit represents one of many great unanswered questions about the *mythic business model* that Kalanick once summed up as, basically, getting rid of "the other dude in the car." In the future he and Lyft co-founder John Zimmer have described, apps and bots do the work, consumers save big time and investors just rake it in. But number-crunchers at GM and companies including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo are adding up a lot of costs that will get in the way of robotaxis being cash cows."
> 
> "It is a really big issue and no one has figured it out," said Mark Wakefield, co-head of the global automotive practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners. "No one is even betting on the outcome."
> 
> "What might the rental companies charge? They typically deal with *depreciation of more than $300 per car every month*; Hertz has $10 billion in vehicles on its books and depreciates them to the tune of $2 billion a year. *Add in cleaning and maintenance, and the total may be $400 to $600 per a month*, Wakefield said."
> 
> From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-problem-there-s-no-one-to-clean-up-the-mess


All drunken sex will be caught on the car's video. This will also become a profit center. Waymo has already cut a deal with Hustler. Probably.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhahahaha! SO FUNNY!
> 
> Now we're all defecating in airline seats!!!!
> 
> I've flown hundreds of times and never once saw or heard of a single person defecating. Never. Where is all of this "havoc" you speak of?
> 
> Amazing. Really sad, but amazing.
> 
> Make mess, pay fee, profit center. Please make more messes, we like money.
> 
> "_..._the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will earn large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually."
> 
> FIFY


"OK, ladies and gentlemen, I have some news for you
Shit Happens!
Before I was a parent, I flew for a major British Airlline for 11 years. Our motto was "to fly to serve", and I served passengers from all over the world. From experience, I can tell you that people puke on airplanes, people masturbate on airplanes, people die on airplanes and yes: shock, horror: people, especially children, shit on airplanes - and not always in the correct location."
"Famous actor, Gerard Depardieu was forced to apologise after pissing on the floor of a Dublin City Jet (read the details here) in 2011. Gerard Depardieu is not Chinese, but French" 

and

"The child's parents spread newspaper on the airline seat and encouraged the child to relieve himself there, according to the Daily Mail.
The resulting odour quickly filled the cabin, sending disgusted passengers into a fury."

Obviously you have no experience with customers. If few people are defecating on a plane seat, while surrounded by other people, can you say what more people will do when alone and unattended inside a moving locked box? And please, stop saying more mess is more money.... a piece of duct tape or bubble gum (on the cameras in reach inside the cars) will eliminate any possible evidence to make the robot owners charge riders for misconduct.

There will be online forums on what to do and how to do to get away with vandalizing robots, like this forum about shoplifting - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4840204/The-online-forum-exclusively-SHOPLIFTERS.html

Again - stop smoking that crap from that idiotic Santa. It makes you look..... helpless.


----------



## Leo1983

jocker12 said:


> With the entire automotive industry looking toward a future of driverless mobility, commercially owned self-driving taxis seem poised to be on the frontline of tomorrow. However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.
> 
> Animals are universally disgusting and humans are no exception. While we've mastered land, air, and sea, consider the spaces we occupy while we traverse those expanses. Rental cars are returned filled with *candy wrappers, spilt soda, and human hair*. Uber vehicles are *routinely vomited in*. The subway is a *haven for disease*. Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.
> 
> Autonomous taxis aren't likely to endure better treatment. Without a driver present, *the urge to have drunken sex will be far too strong* - and those odds only increase when you add a second occupant to the equation. With nobody watching, we'll leave *half-consumed hamburgers and cans of sweetened tea on their floors that will roll around and turn the carpet into a sticky magnet for larger pieces of garbage*.
> 
> _Bloomberg_ speculates the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will cost large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually. *That number swells into the billions* when you account for insurance, maintenance, storage, and the accelerated devaluation of such vehicles.
> 
> Uber is desperate to make the switch to driverless vehicles as soon as technology allows it, but abandoning the vehicle's owner could result in unforeseen costs. Since drivers are responsible for their own cars, Uber's policy is to force passengers who make a mess to foot the cleaning bill. This often results in drivers paying it themselves, especially when there isn't a standout vomiting incident allowing for easy finger pointing. However, even when there is, it's notoriously difficult to actually force someone to pay and often times not worth pursuing.
> 
> Other firms, like Avis' ZipCar, have seen their fleets used and abused to a point where it has become difficult to keep up with the necessary cleaning. Its vehicles are stored in various locations throughout multiple cities and can change hands hourly. Finding someone to routinely assure they're clean inside is next to impossible.
> 
> Traditional rental companies spend anywhere from $100 to $300 per vehicle each month while maintaining their fleet. For hourly rentals, that fee is much less predictable.
> 
> General Motors' Maven arm, which competes with Zipcar and leases vehicles to both Uber and Lyft drivers, has begun studying how much abuse ride-share vehicles take. In addition to the wear, tear, and grime left in the wake of inconsiderate customers, the costs for parking and insurance will be significant - especially in the major metropolitan areas where such services are more popular.
> 
> Peter Kosak, GM's executive director of urban mobility, has said that Maven's goal is to provide consumers access to a diverse lineup of vehicles while still making sure it feels akin to ownership. *That illusion* is tainted the second someone finds another person's greasy fingerprints on the steering wheel. That's a new problem, one which will proliferate as community cars become more popular.
> 
> Lyft's co-founder John Zimmer recently referred to personal vehicle ownership as "a ball and chain that gets dragged through our daily life." He believes car ownership will be all but abandoned in major U.S. cities by 2025. While few are willing to plot a timeline quite so ambitious as Zimmer's, ride-sharing_ has_ become more common. However, it won't become ubiquitous until manufacturers can make the numbers work and drivers/riders can be assured a sanitary experience. Likewise, a plan has to be put in place to keep autonomous vehicles, with nobody to look out for them, from becoming* roving toxic waste dumps*.
> 
> "Lyft and Uber don't care about managing the fleet," said Kosak. "Down the road, you'll need to dictate who does all of that."
> 
> From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...l-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
> 
> "How to deal with vomit represents one of many great unanswered questions about the *mythic business model* that Kalanick once summed up as, basically, getting rid of "the other dude in the car." In the future he and Lyft co-founder John Zimmer have described, apps and bots do the work, consumers save big time and investors just rake it in. But number-crunchers at GM and companies including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo are adding up a lot of costs that will get in the way of robotaxis being cash cows."
> 
> "It is a really big issue and no one has figured it out," said Mark Wakefield, co-head of the global automotive practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners. "No one is even betting on the outcome."
> 
> "What might the rental companies charge? They typically deal with *depreciation of more than $300 per car every month*; Hertz has $10 billion in vehicles on its books and depreciates them to the tune of $2 billion a year. *Add in cleaning and maintenance, and the total may be $400 to $600 per a month*, Wakefield said."
> 
> From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-problem-there-s-no-one-to-clean-up-the-mess


Ima pee in one.


----------



## jocker12

Leo1983 said:


> Ima pee in one.


With some duct tape to cover eventual recording cameras inside the robot, you can do whatever you want. Covering the camera with tape or bubble gum is not a crime, and if they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (more pax traveled while camera was covered) , anybody could easily get away with trashing the interior.


----------



## Leo1983

jocker12 said:


> With some duct tape to cover eventual recording cameras inside the robot, you can do whatever you want. Covering the camera with tape or bubble gum is not a crime, and if they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (more pax traveled while camera was covered) , anybody could easily get away with trashing the interior.


Or take a bottle of pee and pour it in between the seat cushions. It will become a delicious environment in a few days.


----------



## jocker12

Leo1983 said:


> Or take a bottle of pee and pour it in between the seat cushions. It will become a delicious environment in a few days.


Elon Musk had this crazy vision -  "You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it *generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation*, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not."

Of course all the idiots were jumping to the ceiling, dreaming how their poverty and lack of basic common sense will be resolved by the futuristic Tesla's, running in AutoPilot mode. Nobody thought what a child with a razor blade, some diarrhea or some vomit could do in 10 seconds to their beloved self driving robot.


----------



## empresstabitha

RamzFanz said:


> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhahahaha! SO FUNNY!
> 
> Now we're all defecating in airline seats!!!!
> 
> I've flown hundreds of times and never once saw or heard of a single person defecating. Never. Where is all of this "havoc" you speak of?
> 
> Amazing. Really sad, but amazing.
> 
> Make mess, pay fee, profit center. Please make more messes, we like money.
> 
> "_..._the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will earn large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually."
> 
> FIFY


People some people wear adult diapers so you wouldn't see it.


----------



## Oscar Levant

jocker12 said:


> With the entire automotive industry looking toward a future of driverless mobility, commercially owned self-driving taxis seem poised to be on the frontline of tomorrow. However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.
> 
> Animals are universally disgusting and humans are no exception. While we've mastered land, air, and sea, consider the spaces we occupy while we traverse those expanses. Rental cars are returned filled with *candy wrappers, spilt soda, and human hair*. Uber vehicles are *routinely vomited in*. The subway is a *haven for disease*. Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.
> 
> Autonomous taxis aren't likely to endure better treatment. Without a driver present, *the urge to have drunken sex will be far too strong* - and those odds only increase when you add a second occupant to the equation. With nobody watching, we'll leave *half-consumed hamburgers and cans of sweetened tea on their floors that will roll around and turn the carpet into a sticky magnet for larger pieces of garbage*.
> 
> _Bloomberg_ speculates the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will cost large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually. *That number swells into the billions* when you account for insurance, maintenance, storage, and the accelerated devaluation of such vehicles.
> 
> Uber is desperate to make the switch to driverless vehicles as soon as technology allows it, but abandoning the vehicle's owner could result in unforeseen costs. Since drivers are responsible for their own cars, Uber's policy is to force passengers who make a mess to foot the cleaning bill. This often results in drivers paying it themselves, especially when there isn't a standout vomiting incident allowing for easy finger pointing. However, even when there is, it's notoriously difficult to actually force someone to pay and often times not worth pursuing.
> 
> Other firms, like Avis' ZipCar, have seen their fleets used and abused to a point where it has become difficult to keep up with the necessary cleaning. Its vehicles are stored in various locations throughout multiple cities and can change hands hourly. Finding someone to routinely assure they're clean inside is next to impossible.
> 
> Traditional rental companies spend anywhere from $100 to $300 per vehicle each month while maintaining their fleet. For hourly rentals, that fee is much less predictable.
> 
> General Motors' Maven arm, which competes with Zipcar and leases vehicles to both Uber and Lyft drivers, has begun studying how much abuse ride-share vehicles take. In addition to the wear, tear, and grime left in the wake of inconsiderate customers, the costs for parking and insurance will be significant - especially in the major metropolitan areas where such services are more popular.
> 
> Peter Kosak, GM's executive director of urban mobility, has said that Maven's goal is to provide consumers access to a diverse lineup of vehicles while still making sure it feels akin to ownership. *That illusion* is tainted the second someone finds another person's greasy fingerprints on the steering wheel. That's a new problem, one which will proliferate as community cars become more popular.
> 
> Lyft's co-founder John Zimmer recently referred to personal vehicle ownership as "a ball and chain that gets dragged through our daily life." He believes car ownership will be all but abandoned in major U.S. cities by 2025. While few are willing to plot a timeline quite so ambitious as Zimmer's, ride-sharing_ has_ become more common. However, it won't become ubiquitous until manufacturers can make the numbers work and drivers/riders can be assured a sanitary experience. Likewise, a plan has to be put in place to keep autonomous vehicles, with nobody to look out for them, from becoming* roving toxic waste dumps*.
> 
> "Lyft and Uber don't care about managing the fleet," said Kosak. "Down the road, you'll need to dictate who does all of that."
> 
> From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...l-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
> 
> "How to deal with vomit represents one of many great unanswered questions about the *mythic business model* that Kalanick once summed up as, basically, getting rid of "the other dude in the car." In the future he and Lyft co-founder John Zimmer have described, apps and bots do the work, consumers save big time and investors just rake it in. But number-crunchers at GM and companies including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo are adding up a lot of costs that will get in the way of robotaxis being cash cows."
> 
> "It is a really big issue and no one has figured it out," said Mark Wakefield, co-head of the global automotive practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners. "No one is even betting on the outcome."
> 
> "What might the rental companies charge? They typically deal with *depreciation of more than $300 per car every month*; Hertz has $10 billion in vehicles on its books and depreciates them to the tune of $2 billion a year. *Add in cleaning and maintenance, and the total may be $400 to $600 per a month*, Wakefield said."
> 
> From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-problem-there-s-no-one-to-clean-up-the-mess


I've posited the same. SDC's will be vandalized, just like public toilets are generally disgusting, unless they are in nice hotels and restaurants where they are given much attention. It amazes me that Uber hasn't factored this in, unless they put in cameras, which will make them even more undesirable to ride in. Methinks the entire SDC effort will turn out to be one gargantuan boondoggle.



tomatopaste said:


> All drunken sex will be caught on the car's video. This will also become a profit center. Waymo has already cut a deal with Hustler. Probably.


Cameras in SDCs will be one more reason not to ride in them.


----------



## tohunt4me

jocker12 said:


> With the entire automotive industry looking toward a future of driverless mobility, commercially owned self-driving taxis seem poised to be on the frontline of tomorrow. However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.
> 
> Animals are universally disgusting and humans are no exception. While we've mastered land, air, and sea, consider the spaces we occupy while we traverse those expanses. Rental cars are returned filled with *candy wrappers, spilt soda, and human hair*. Uber vehicles are *routinely vomited in*. The subway is a *haven for disease*. Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.
> 
> Autonomous taxis aren't likely to endure better treatment. Without a driver present, *the urge to have drunken sex will be far too strong* - and those odds only increase when you add a second occupant to the equation. With nobody watching, we'll leave *half-consumed hamburgers and cans of sweetened tea on their floors that will roll around and turn the carpet into a sticky magnet for larger pieces of garbage*.
> 
> _Bloomberg_ speculates the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will cost large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually. *That number swells into the billions* when you account for insurance, maintenance, storage, and the accelerated devaluation of such vehicles.
> 
> Uber is desperate to make the switch to driverless vehicles as soon as technology allows it, but abandoning the vehicle's owner could result in unforeseen costs. Since drivers are responsible for their own cars, Uber's policy is to force passengers who make a mess to foot the cleaning bill. This often results in drivers paying it themselves, especially when there isn't a standout vomiting incident allowing for easy finger pointing. However, even when there is, it's notoriously difficult to actually force someone to pay and often times not worth pursuing.
> 
> Other firms, like Avis' ZipCar, have seen their fleets used and abused to a point where it has become difficult to keep up with the necessary cleaning. Its vehicles are stored in various locations throughout multiple cities and can change hands hourly. Finding someone to routinely assure they're clean inside is next to impossible.
> 
> Traditional rental companies spend anywhere from $100 to $300 per vehicle each month while maintaining their fleet. For hourly rentals, that fee is much less predictable.
> 
> General Motors' Maven arm, which competes with Zipcar and leases vehicles to both Uber and Lyft drivers, has begun studying how much abuse ride-share vehicles take. In addition to the wear, tear, and grime left in the wake of inconsiderate customers, the costs for parking and insurance will be significant - especially in the major metropolitan areas where such services are more popular.
> 
> Peter Kosak, GM's executive director of urban mobility, has said that Maven's goal is to provide consumers access to a diverse lineup of vehicles while still making sure it feels akin to ownership. *That illusion* is tainted the second someone finds another person's greasy fingerprints on the steering wheel. That's a new problem, one which will proliferate as community cars become more popular.
> 
> Lyft's co-founder John Zimmer recently referred to personal vehicle ownership as "a ball and chain that gets dragged through our daily life." He believes car ownership will be all but abandoned in major U.S. cities by 2025. While few are willing to plot a timeline quite so ambitious as Zimmer's, ride-sharing_ has_ become more common. However, it won't become ubiquitous until manufacturers can make the numbers work and drivers/riders can be assured a sanitary experience. Likewise, a plan has to be put in place to keep autonomous vehicles, with nobody to look out for them, from becoming* roving toxic waste dumps*.
> 
> "Lyft and Uber don't care about managing the fleet," said Kosak. "Down the road, you'll need to dictate who does all of that."
> 
> From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...l-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
> 
> "How to deal with vomit represents one of many great unanswered questions about the *mythic business model* that Kalanick once summed up as, basically, getting rid of "the other dude in the car." In the future he and Lyft co-founder John Zimmer have described, apps and bots do the work, consumers save big time and investors just rake it in. But number-crunchers at GM and companies including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo are adding up a lot of costs that will get in the way of robotaxis being cash cows."
> 
> "It is a really big issue and no one has figured it out," said Mark Wakefield, co-head of the global automotive practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners. "No one is even betting on the outcome."
> 
> "What might the rental companies charge? They typically deal with *depreciation of more than $300 per car every month*; Hertz has $10 billion in vehicles on its books and depreciates them to the tune of $2 billion a year. *Add in cleaning and maintenance, and the total may be $400 to $600 per a month*, Wakefield said."
> 
> From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-problem-there-s-no-one-to-clean-up-the-mess


Rolling PORT O LETS WITH USED CONDOMS DANGLING FROM THE HEADRESTS.

DONT SIT ON THOSE H.I.V. NEEDLES !


----------



## tomatopaste

Oscar Levant said:


> I've posited the same. SDC's will be vandalized, just like public toilets are generally disgusting, unless they are in nice hotels and restaurants where they are given much attention. It amazes me that Uber hasn't factored this in, unless they put in cameras, which will make them even more undesirable to ride in. Methinks the entire SDC effort will turn out to be one gargantuan boondoggle.
> 
> Cameras in SDCs will be one more reason not to ride in them.


It's a free country


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> At what point is he saying they are REMOVING "drivers" from the cars, because at this point in time, having a driver in the car is the obvious not the exception.


Driver? WTF are you even thinking of? The entire point is there will be NO driver. SDCs are real. Wake up.



jocker12 said:


> So, where are they saying they will remove the drivers for your phantasmagorically "Additional Services"?


I knew you were crazy, but now everyone knows.



jocker12 said:


> "OK, ladies and gentlemen, I have some news for you
> Shit Happens!
> Before I was a parent, I flew for a major British Airlline for 11 years. Our motto was "to fly to serve", and I served passengers from all over the world. From experience, I can tell you that people puke on airplanes, people masturbate on airplanes, people die on airplanes and yes: shock, horror: people, especially children, shit on airplanes - and not always in the correct location."
> "Famous actor, Gerard Depardieu was forced to apologise after pissing on the floor of a Dublin City Jet (read the details here) in 2011. Gerard Depardieu is not Chinese, but French"
> 
> and
> 
> "The child's parents spread newspaper on the airline seat and encouraged the child to relieve himself there, according to the Daily Mail.
> The resulting odour quickly filled the cabin, sending disgusted passengers into a fury."
> 
> Obviously you have no experience with customers. If few people are defecating on a plane seat, while surrounded by other people, can you say what more people will do when alone and unattended inside a moving locked box? And please, stop saying more mess is more money.... a piece of duct tape or bubble gum (on the cameras in reach inside the cars) will eliminate any possible evidence to make the robot owners charge riders for misconduct.
> 
> There will be online forums on what to do and how to do to get away with vandalizing robots, like this forum about shoplifting - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4840204/The-online-forum-exclusively-SHOPLIFTERS.html
> 
> Again - stop smoking that crap from that idiotic Santa. It makes you look..... helpless.


This is your response to you rambling on about people crapping on planes and me calling you out? You must be kidding me.



jocker12 said:


> With some duct tape to cover eventual recording cameras inside the robot, you can do whatever you want. Covering the camera with tape or bubble gum is not a crime, and if they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (more pax traveled while camera was covered) , anybody could easily get away with trashing the interior.


Uh, god.

That's so stupid.

I can't.

You don't get that a covered camera would be recognized and reacted upon in a trillionth (literally) of a second?



jocker12 said:


> Elon Musk had this crazy vision -  "You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it *generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation*, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not."
> 
> Of course all the idiots were jumping to the ceiling, dreaming how their poverty and lack of basic common sense will be resolved by the futuristic Tesla's, running in AutoPilot mode. Nobody thought what a child with a razor blade, some diarrhea or some vomit could do in 10 seconds to their beloved self driving robot.


Seriously, you're crazy.



Oscar Levant said:


> I've posited the same. SDC's will be vandalized, just like public toilets are generally disgusting, unless they are in nice hotels and restaurants where they are given much attention. It amazes me that Uber hasn't factored this in, unless they put in cameras, which will make them even more undesirable to ride in. Methinks the entire SDC effort will turn out to be one gargantuan boondoggle.
> 
> Cameras in SDCs will be one more reason not to ride in them.


LOL!

JUST YES!

Cameras, which are everywhere you go today, are also in SDCs. No one cares. And yes, that's how you will pay cleaning fees.

Hey, dude, wake up. SDCs are already here.



empresstabitha said:


> People some people wear adult diapers so you wouldn't see it.


San Francisco is heard from.


----------



## REX HAVOC

jocker12 said:


> With the entire automotive industry looking toward a future of driverless mobility, commercially owned self-driving taxis seem poised to be on the frontline of tomorrow. However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.
> 
> Animals are universally disgusting and humans are no exception. While we've mastered land, air, and sea, consider the spaces we occupy while we traverse those expanses. Rental cars are returned filled with *candy wrappers, spilt soda, and human hair*. Uber vehicles are *routinely vomited in*. The subway is a *haven for disease*. Airplane interiors experience *havoc within the first hour of a flight as the worst of us begin defecating into the seats*, too lazy and weak to control ourselves.
> 
> Autonomous taxis aren't likely to endure better treatment. Without a driver present, *the urge to have drunken sex will be far too strong* - and those odds only increase when you add a second occupant to the equation. With nobody watching, we'll leave *half-consumed hamburgers and cans of sweetened tea on their floors that will roll around and turn the carpet into a sticky magnet for larger pieces of garbage*.
> 
> _Bloomberg_ speculates the never-ending process of cleaning other people's filth will cost large firms with autonomous fleets tens of millions of dollars annually. *That number swells into the billions* when you account for insurance, maintenance, storage, and the accelerated devaluation of such vehicles.
> 
> Uber is desperate to make the switch to driverless vehicles as soon as technology allows it, but abandoning the vehicle's owner could result in unforeseen costs. Since drivers are responsible for their own cars, Uber's policy is to force passengers who make a mess to foot the cleaning bill. This often results in drivers paying it themselves, especially when there isn't a standout vomiting incident allowing for easy finger pointing. However, even when there is, it's notoriously difficult to actually force someone to pay and often times not worth pursuing.
> 
> Other firms, like Avis' ZipCar, have seen their fleets used and abused to a point where it has become difficult to keep up with the necessary cleaning. Its vehicles are stored in various locations throughout multiple cities and can change hands hourly. Finding someone to routinely assure they're clean inside is next to impossible.
> 
> Traditional rental companies spend anywhere from $100 to $300 per vehicle each month while maintaining their fleet. For hourly rentals, that fee is much less predictable.
> 
> General Motors' Maven arm, which competes with Zipcar and leases vehicles to both Uber and Lyft drivers, has begun studying how much abuse ride-share vehicles take. In addition to the wear, tear, and grime left in the wake of inconsiderate customers, the costs for parking and insurance will be significant - especially in the major metropolitan areas where such services are more popular.
> 
> Peter Kosak, GM's executive director of urban mobility, has said that Maven's goal is to provide consumers access to a diverse lineup of vehicles while still making sure it feels akin to ownership. *That illusion* is tainted the second someone finds another person's greasy fingerprints on the steering wheel. That's a new problem, one which will proliferate as community cars become more popular.
> 
> Lyft's co-founder John Zimmer recently referred to personal vehicle ownership as "a ball and chain that gets dragged through our daily life." He believes car ownership will be all but abandoned in major U.S. cities by 2025. While few are willing to plot a timeline quite so ambitious as Zimmer's, ride-sharing_ has_ become more common. However, it won't become ubiquitous until manufacturers can make the numbers work and drivers/riders can be assured a sanitary experience. Likewise, a plan has to be put in place to keep autonomous vehicles, with nobody to look out for them, from becoming* roving toxic waste dumps*.
> 
> "Lyft and Uber don't care about managing the fleet," said Kosak. "Down the road, you'll need to dictate who does all of that."
> 
> From http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...l-become-the-most-disgusting-spaces-on-earth/
> 
> "How to deal with vomit represents one of many great unanswered questions about the *mythic business model* that Kalanick once summed up as, basically, getting rid of "the other dude in the car." In the future he and Lyft co-founder John Zimmer have described, apps and bots do the work, consumers save big time and investors just rake it in. But number-crunchers at GM and companies including Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo are adding up a lot of costs that will get in the way of robotaxis being cash cows."
> 
> "It is a really big issue and no one has figured it out," said Mark Wakefield, co-head of the global automotive practice at the consulting firm AlixPartners. "No one is even betting on the outcome."
> 
> "What might the rental companies charge? They typically deal with *depreciation of more than $300 per car every month*; Hertz has $10 billion in vehicles on its books and depreciates them to the tune of $2 billion a year. *Add in cleaning and maintenance, and the total may be $400 to $600 per a month*, Wakefield said."
> 
> From https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-problem-there-s-no-one-to-clean-up-the-mess


My guess is that Uber won't want to pay all those costs and will try to do some sort of an arrangement with auto makers like Ford or GM. These companies will supply and maintain the cars and Uber will do some sort of revenue split with them so they never have to own any vehicles, they'll just have to clean them.Since there will be no driver to take from the profits there should be enough money to make this sort of arrangement attractive to the automakers and Uber will still make more than they would if they had private drivers. Remember these cars will run 24/7 and only will need to be re-fueled and clean 2x per day. Uber will only need to hire a tow service for break downs, rent the lots to store the cars and pay the commercial insurance.

Once this is in place rates will rise. But by then the public will own fewer and fewer cars and we will have become more and more dependent on companies like Uber to shuttle us around. For the consumer it means no car payments, no insurance payments, no maintenance costs. I think if there are only a few players in the game like Uber and Lyft there we will start to see some automakers go out of business unless they are a preferred vendor for one of these RS companies. There will end up being mass consolidations in Auto Manufacturing, many people will lose their jobs and ultimately less choice since we won't need hundreds of different model cars on the market.


----------



## RamzFanz

REX HAVOC said:


> My guess is that Uber won't want to pay all those costs and will try to do some sort of an arrangement with auto makers like Ford or GM. These companies will supply and maintain the cars and Uber will do some sort of revenue split with them so they never have to own any vehicles, they'll just have to clean them.Since there will be no driver to take from the profits there should be enough money to make this sort of arrangement attractive to the automakers and Uber will still make more than they would if they had private drivers. Remember these cars will run 24/7 and only will need to be re-fueled and clean 2x per day. Uber will only need to hire a tow service for break downs, rent the lots to store the cars and pay the commercial insurance.
> 
> Once this is in place rates will rise. But by then the public will own fewer and fewer cars and we will have become more and more dependent on companies like Uber to shuttle us around. For the consumer it means no car payments, no insurance payments, no maintenance costs. I think if there are only a few players in the game like Uber and Lyft there we will start to see some automakers go out of business unless they are a preferred vendor for one of these RS companies. There will end up being mass consolidations in Auto Manufacturing, many people will lose their jobs and ultimately less choice since we won't need hundreds of different model cars on the market.


Ugh, I read that.


----------



## jocker12

REX HAVOC said:


> My guess is that Uber won't want to pay all those costs and will try to do some sort of an arrangement with auto makers like Ford or GM. These companies will supply and maintain the cars and Uber will do some sort of revenue split with them so they never have to own any vehicles, they'll just have to clean them.Since there will be no driver to take from the profits there should be enough money to make this sort of arrangement attractive to the automakers and Uber will still make more than they would if they had private drivers. Remember these cars will run 24/7 and only will need to be re-fueled and clean 2x per day. Uber will only need to hire a tow service for break downs, rent the lots to store the cars and pay the commercial insurance.
> 
> Once this is in place rates will rise. But by then the public will own fewer and fewer cars and we will have become more and more dependent on companies like Uber to shuttle us around. For the consumer it means no car payments, no insurance payments, no maintenance costs. I think if there are only a few players in the game like Uber and Lyft there we will start to see some automakers go out of business unless they are a preferred vendor for one of these RS companies. There will end up being mass consolidations in Auto Manufacturing, many people will lose their jobs and ultimately less choice since we won't need hundreds of different model cars on the market.


Every time you talk (less) science and (more) FICTION, you start with "My guess is... ", which you did.

So, speaking about science fiction, what's your guess on Master Yoda? What species you guess is he? Or is Jar Jar Bins a Sith lord?


----------



## emdeplam

Larger vehicles with multiple fares will limit behavior. Thus the push for pool


----------



## jocker12

emdeplam said:


> Larger vehicles with multiple fares will limit behavior. Thus the push for pool


Question for you - Please stop for a second and think.... who likes pool?


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> Driver? WTF are you even thinking of? The entire point is there will be NO driver. SDCs are real. Wake up.
> 
> I knew you were crazy, but now everyone knows.
> 
> This is your response to you rambling on about people crapping on planes and me calling you out? You must be kidding me.
> 
> Uh, god.
> 
> That's so stupid.
> 
> I can't.
> 
> You don't get that a covered camera would be recognized and reacted upon in a trillionth (literally) of a second?
> 
> Seriously, you're crazy.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> JUST YES!
> 
> Cameras, which are everywhere you go today, are also in SDCs. No one cares. And yes, that's how you will pay cleaning fees.
> 
> Hey, dude, wake up. SDCs are already here.
> 
> San Francisco is heard from.


The may be "here" but their share of the market is miniscule. Talk to me when they have 50% of the market. It assumes that 50% of the market will want them. I say they won't.


----------



## empresstabitha

REX HAVOC said:


> My guess is that Uber won't want to pay all those costs and will try to do some sort of an arrangement with auto makers like Ford or GM. These companies will supply and maintain the cars and Uber will do some sort of revenue split with them so they never have to own any vehicles, they'll just have to clean them.Since there will be no driver to take from the profits there should be enough money to make this sort of arrangement attractive to the automakers and Uber will still make more than they would if they had private drivers. Remember these cars will run 24/7 and only will need to be re-fueled and clean 2x per day. Uber will only need to hire a tow service for break downs, rent the lots to store the cars and pay the commercial insurance.
> 
> Once this is in place rates will rise. But by then the public will own fewer and fewer cars and we will have become more and more dependent on companies like Uber to shuttle us around. For the consumer it means no car payments, no insurance payments, no maintenance costs. I think if there are only a few players in the game like Uber and Lyft there we will start to see some automakers go out of business unless they are a preferred vendor for one of these RS companies. There will end up being mass consolidations in Auto Manufacturing, many people will lose their jobs and ultimately less choice since we won't need hundreds of different model cars on the market.


Except GM has it's own self driving fleet their working on. Why let Uber in on the deal?


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> The may be "here" but their share of the market is miniscule. Talk to me when they have 50% of the market. It assumes that 50% of the market will want them. I say they won't.


The majority of the market is in urban metro areas. Watch how fast they adopt SDCs.


----------



## jocker12

RamzFanz said:


> Driver? WTF are you even thinking of? The entire point is there will be NO driver. SDCs are real. Wake up.


Hey bud, you need to READ what I put in front of your eyes and stop circling around like a chicken without a head. You would think self driving cars is about removing the driver, but Lyft has a DIFFERENT opinion and plans about this. I know is hard for you to connect the dots, so I put it in this thread. You have the article and the segment about their plans.



RamzFanz said:


> I knew you were crazy, but now everyone knows.


No bud, I am a WITCH with a horn in the middle of my forehead. After you finish up smoking that joint that makes you brave enough to stop by and comment on your self driving dreams, you'll see me flying on a broom. Self flying broom. Only for you.



RamzFanz said:


> You don't get that a covered camera would be recognized and reacted upon in a trillionth (literally) of a second?


React to how and what for? Covering a camera is not a crime. Trying to sneak up on to your customers is. That's why cameras are illegal in the PUBLIC toilets or/and fitting rooms.



RamzFanz said:


> Cameras, which are everywhere you go today, are also in SDCs. No one cares.


All those cameras are NOT in reach. Do you know why bud?

Please provide a link to an official Lyft source that says Lyft plans to completely REMOVE their drivers from their self driving cars or THE OTHER "additional services" you fantasize about.

And educate the ladies, teach them how to drive. They'll need it for the REST of their lives.

And STOP smoking what you are smoking.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> The majority of the market is in urban metro areas. Watch how fast they adopt SDCs.


Still watchin', not gonna hold my breath.


----------



## WeirdBob

RamzFanz said:


> You don't get that a covered camera would be recognized and reacted upon in a trillionth (literally) of a second?.







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picosecond

A *picosecond* is an SI unit of time equal to 10−12 or 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a second. That is one trillionth, or one millionth of one millionth of a second, or 0.000 000 000 001 seconds.

picosecond - time taken by light in a vacuum to travel approximately 0.30 mm
330 picoseconds (approximately) - the time it takes a common 3.0 GHz computer CPU to add two integers


----------



## STMNine

With or without cameras, I at least cannot even begin to imagine what sort of illegal activities can and likely will take place inside these SDCs. It's not just gonna be garbage, human waste or pet waste to be concerned about but what sort of contraband, illegal drugs or stolen property are gonna get offloaded/misplaced inside of these things?


----------



## RamzFanz

jocker12 said:


> You would think self driving cars is about removing the driver, but Lyft has a DIFFERENT opinion and plans about this.


Another of your completely made up fantasies derived by intentionally misconstruing a simple and clear statement and sprinkling it with your magical pixie dust. At no time, and in no way, did Lyft or ANY OTHER of the thousands of soone to be SDC companies ever say or even imply they would have a human in every car.

EXTRA service. Not STANDARD service. God man, grow up.



jocker12 said:


> React to how and what for? Covering a camera is not a crime. Trying to sneak up on to your customers is. That's why cameras are illegal in the PUBLIC toilets or/and fitting rooms.


Covering a camera will certainly be against the TOS and the car will simply pull over and continue to record your actions from the additional cameras. Any damage will be charged to the account holder. Profit center, not an issue.



jocker12 said:


> All those cameras are NOT in reach. Do you know why bud?


Tangent.

Cover camera, lose service, pay fees.



jocker12 said:


> Please provide a link to an official Lyft source that says Lyft plans to completely REMOVE their drivers from their self driving cars or THE OTHER "additional services" you fantasize about.


Can't prove a negative, silly.

You claim they will have a person in every car, which is NOT AT ALL what was said, so prove it.



Oscar Levant said:


> Still watchin', not gonna hold my breath.


Keep watching. They're 3 years ahead of schedule and accelerating.



STMNine said:


> With or without cameras, I at least cannot even begin to imagine what sort of illegal activities can and likely will take place inside these SDCs. It's not just gonna be garbage, human waste or pet waste to be concerned about but what sort of contraband, illegal drugs or stolen property are gonna get offloaded/misplaced inside of these things?


All profit centers. Damage car, pay a nice, fat, and profitable fee.

What happens today when someone damages a TNC vehicle?

I've had one puker. He didn't get a drop inside, just on the outside. $140 for a $4 car wash. I want more of those. I had a guy smash gum into my carpet. 5 minutes with wet wipes and a $40 fee. More gum smashers please.

Guess what happens when the word gets out? Yeah, it almost all stops. Unfortunate for the TNC company who will be loving those fees.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

As does any form of transportation, these things are going to need an infrastructure to support them. They will require mechanical facilities, electrical facilities, technological facilities and cleaning facilities, at the very least. It might be possible to combine some or all of these into one facility. You might have a service facility that does only cleaning, or one that does both technological and electrical or you might have one Super Service Centre that does it all. 

The newer cars, these days, have all sorts of sensors in them. More will become available as time passes. Already, the on board computer in the car that you drive can sense more than a few mechanical problems. With the self-driver, once the computer senses it, it will withdraw the vehicle for service, and send it to the mechanical facility. Similar applies to electrical or technological problems. Problem sensed; vehicle locks doors and proceeds to Service Centre.

These Service Centres, be they specialty or Super Centres will want to save on costs, so they will go to robots as much as possible. Human labour costs can cut deep into the profits of any concern. This will require modular construction, which is something that has been used increasingly, as it is. The computer will know what is defective, cause a robot to take out that module, swap in a good module and send the thing back out onto the street. Modular construction will apply to the interior, as well. It will be one or two pieces that are standardised thus can be swapped in and out, as necessary.

If you go into the bathroom at Giant or certain gasolene stations, there is a light that you can turn ON that notifies personnel that the bathroom requires cleaning. You could do similar with these things. You summon the thing with your telephone, it comes, it is filthy, you reject it, the application asks why you are rejecting it, you check "dirty" and the computer withdraws it from service, sends it to the cleaning facility, where a robot swaps out the dirty interior module, swaps in a clean one, and puts the dirty one onto a conveyor for a washing procedure.. The modules all will be undone by means of a few bolts or clips.

The vehicle owners will simply contract with the various service facilities. The car goes, the facility services, records the charge and bills the owner at the end of the week, month, quarter or whatever time interval you want.

Truthfully, you are going to have to "fuel" pure electric cars similarly. No one wants to sit at a charging facility on the Delaware Turnpike for two, four or eight hours--NO one. The best way to do this is you pull into a battery station. The robot pulls out your battery tray, swaps in a fully charged one, you pay a fee and you are on your way. The "battery station" takes your battery tray and puts it into a re-charger. There is a meter in your car that gives you a range, so if you get a battery set that shows, say, less than two hundred fifty miles, you can call it a "bum steer" and demand another. This will require standardised modular construction, but, that can be done. 

Yes, the self driving cars for hire will get trashed. To read these Boards, half the customers leave trash, spill drinks, slop half their loaded burrito and ralph in the cars, as it is. The difference here is that the interiors will have to be built to facilitate clean up. Why does anyone think that taxicabs have rubber floors and vinyl covered seats? You make the floors rubber. You make the seats one piece, so that there is no gap between back and bench and cover them in vinyl or make them plastic. You construct the windows in such a way that they slide rather than disappear into the door, so that the ralph will not get inside the door. It will cost money, it will take time, but it can be done.


----------



## JDJDrama

Can’t imagine what these cars will look like, inside and out, after a weekend driving in Vegas! 
*Gangsters Paradise


----------



## tohunt4me

RamzFanz said:


> Driver? WTF are you even thinking of? The entire point is there will be NO driver. SDCs are real. Wake up.
> 
> I knew you were crazy, but now everyone knows.
> 
> This is your response to you rambling on about people crapping on planes and me calling you out? You must be kidding me.
> 
> Uh, god.
> 
> That's so stupid.
> 
> I can't.
> 
> You don't get that a covered camera would be recognized and reacted upon in a trillionth (literally) of a second?
> 
> Seriously, you're crazy.
> 
> LOL!
> 
> JUST YES!
> 
> Cameras, which are everywhere you go today, are also in SDCs. No one cares. And yes, that's how you will pay cleaning fees.
> 
> Hey, dude, wake up. SDCs are already here.
> 
> San Francisco is heard from.


SPECIES TRAITOR !


----------



## jeanocelot

This won't be a problem. The seats will be easy-clean plastic, and there passenger compartment could be cleaned like a self-cleaning public toilet. Or do you all think that a society that can develop a driverless car can't figure out how to design the passenger compartment of efficient cleaning like said toilet? There will also be cameras with the admonition "cameras are recording all activity". And finally, if the compartment is not clean, the customer will be able to reject it, at which time, it would go back to the station to be thoroughly cleaned, probably hiring some of the current Uber drivers who will be thrown out of work.

Now that said, there still could be a demand for the hire of a ride in a nice car, and that could still be sourced from the current owner-operator Uber driver, for a premium of course. There could also be private networks of folks who own driverless cars - or buy into it in some way - who share their rides with other folks, folks that have been vetted as not being disgusting slimeballs that consider their ride to be a toilet. There could be even something like a "passenger cleanliness score" that every customer has, and from which pricing is determined - i.e., here the added cost would be due to the expected cost of cleaning up after the passenger as opposed to the added cost to someone with a low credit score because of the expected value of a default.

Also, the driverless care revolution will bring back mass transit with a bang, as the "last mile" problem will be eliminated, so the chances of someone messing up a car will be much less.



jocker12 said:


> With some duct tape to cover eventual recording cameras inside the robot, you can do whatever you want. Covering the camera with tape or bubble gum is not a crime, and if they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt (more pax traveled while camera was covered) , anybody could easily get away with trashing the interior.


The system will figure out that the camera has been tampered with and will stop, and a cop will show up. Folks might still do it, but it will be like tampering with the smoke alarm in an aircraft toilet.



WeirdBob said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picosecond
> 
> A *picosecond* is an SI unit of time equal to 10−12 or 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a second. That is one trillionth, or one millionth of one millionth of a second, or 0.000 000 000 001 seconds.
> 
> picosecond - time taken by light in a vacuum to travel approximately 0.30 mm
> 330 picoseconds (approximately) - the time it takes a common 3.0 GHz computer CPU to add two integers


BTW, the institution that certifies that an new atomic element has been "discovered" (i.e., by smashing smaller atoms together) requires that the atom stay intact for 0.01 picosecond.


----------



## tomatopaste

jeanocelot said:


> This won't be a problem. The seats will be easy-clean plastic, and there passenger compartment could be cleaned like a self-cleaning public toilet. Or do you all think that a society that can develop a driverless car can't figure out how to design the passenger compartment of efficient cleaning like said toilet?


Worst case scenario, Waymo creates an app for cleaner/contractors. If the cameras detect the last pax left a mess, it pings the closest cleaner/contractor, who might be having lunch at Mcdonald's, and the car drives itself to McDonald's. The cleaner/contractor goes outside and spends 30 seconds cleaning up the mess and gets 10 bucks, probably in Bitcoin. The pax that made the mess is charged 30 bucks. Bingo bango.


----------



## jocker12

jeanocelot said:


> The system will figure out that the camera has been tampered with and will stop, and a cop will show up. Folks might still do it, but it will be like tampering with the smoke alarm in an aircraft toilet.


The aircraft is 36000 feet up into the air and carrying over 100 people on board, while a vehicle is on the road with only one passenger. Do you see *ANY* differences? Covering a camera in reach is not a crime, and the fact that all the security cameras that are currently in use are OUT of people reach, proves how authorities (of any kind) are afraid of people covering them in order to do things out of the ordinary, against the policies or straight illegal.
I know you dream cops responding to such joke, but the only thing they will do in this case, will be to remove the tape from the camera.... hahahaha. If the car stops every single time, it will be a big inconvenience in a system built to be more and more convenient. Think it over for a second, what the PAX will do? Keep requesting another and another car. Do you really think any company will continue to stop the cars (and create a disturbance in the network) or get things going?


----------



## WeirdBob

jeanocelot said:


> BTW, the institution that certifies that an new atomic element has been "discovered" (i.e., by smashing smaller atoms together) requires that the atom stay intact for 0.01 picoseconds.


Which is completely different, of course, than asserting that a computer connected to a camera is capable of reacting to the covering of a camera lens "literally" within a picosecond.

I suppose if the penalty for doing so was to have all the atoms in your body smashed into exotic, short lived super heavy elements that WOULD be an effective deterrent. #uberfusion


----------



## Another Uber Driver

If they do not have it now, odds are they could invent it soon: a sensor that detects if the camera is covered. 

When you sign up for RideCorp, there is language in the Terms of Service that informs you that the vehicles are monitored and that your image is stored. You, the customer, agree to be held responsible for informing any who ride with you that the vehicles are monitored and that images are stored. Further, you agree not to "inhibit the proper or intended function of the monitoring device(s) in any way, shape or form". 

If you cover the camera, the sensor detects that and the vehicle stops.

It may not be operational, now, but, it is not far-fetched to believe that it could be done. While these things are out there and working, despite what some will have you believe, they will not be in widespread use to-morrow. There are more than a few things that need to be in place and fixed. Still, they will be here sooner than most of us would like.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> If they do not have it now, odds are they could invent it soon: a sensor that detects if the camera is covered.


I am afraid is the other way around and you INTENTIONALLY ignore what the law is - 

*Eavesdropping Law and Legal Definition*
The crime of eavesdropping means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private communication of others without the consent of at least one of the persons engaged in the communication, except as otherwise provided by law. Private communications take place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but such term does not include a place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access. A person commits the crime of criminal eavesdropping if he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time.

*18 U.S. Code § 1801 - Video voyeurism*
(a)Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(b) In this section
(1) the term "capture", with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast;
(2) the term "broadcast" means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
(3) the term "a private area of the individual" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual;
(4)the term "female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and
(5) the term "under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means-
(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or
(B) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would *not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place*.
(c)This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

*WHAT ARE THE LAWS FOR MONITORING DRESSING ROOMS?*
As of now, only 13 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Utah) expressly prohibit the use of any monitoring system in dressing rooms. Some states, such as Massachusetts, are contradictory in their laws, as we were able to find a law that said no monitoring of any sort was allowed in dressing rooms, and another that allows it so long as customers are warned of it first. We're not sure which law was enacted first, or if one outweighs the other, but given that it is not on that list of 13 states, it is likely that the warning of customers is the law.

That warning usually comes in the form of a sign posted outside of the dressing rooms, whose language can vary and sound quite ambiguous at times. In the other 37 states, laws require signage such as these to posted so that customers entering dressing rooms know they are potentially being monitored. Usually, customers are monitored by someone of the same gender as they, but there are times when this may not be the case.

This monitoring must be done *as loss prevention only*. Any motive other than this is illegal and would cause the store to be fined heavily

*WHAT LAWS ARE THERE INVOLVING PRIVACY?*
Other than the aforementioned VVPA, there have been numerous cases regarding privacy that have set precedent in terms of the application of law and the Constitution. That phrase, "reasonable expectation of privacy," was first put on record in the case of _Katz v. United States_(1967), which involved federal agents attaching an eavesdropping device to a payphone on suspicion that Katz was illegally transmitting gambling information. The Supreme Court overturned the original conviction in a 7-1 decision on the grounds that, while there was no physical intrusion, *the Fourth Amendment, "protects people, not places."*


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> I am afraid is the other way around and you INTENTIONALLY ignore what the law is


Marry, Sirrah, I fear that you are perhaps, unaware of what might be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and where one might have such a "reasonable expectation".

I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the United States of America that prohibits the use of cameras in busses, limousines or taxicabs. Some jurisdictions, such as the Capital of Your Nation, do require that you notify the prospective customer as to the presence of said recording device and that he will be photographed, As long as there is notification, the prospective customer can then make an informed choice as to whether he will engage the service, or not.

Further, no doubt the Terms of Service will notify the customer of the presence of surveillance equipment. The customer will have to check a box that acknowledges his reading said Terms (even though half of the people who check those boxes have no idea what they are checking, they just know that they must check it to continue). At that point, the provider is covered,

A TNC car is far more similar to a bus, limousine or taxicab than it is to a dressing room (although I have had more than one passenger undress, dress or change clothes in my cab, over the years). There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a TNC car. Why do you think that dashcams are allowed?

Understand something: I do not like these self-driving cars any more than you do. Where we differ is that I refuse blindly to dismiss them as a fad and refuse to consider them impractical when solutions to their shortcomings are conceivable. For this reason, you really should stop lashing out at me blindly and offering disconnected "facts" to support your disagreements. It makes it extremely difficult to conduct any rational discourse with you. I am making another effort to engage in rational discourse with you about this subject despite my past efforts' being in vain. If it becomes obvious that rational discussion on this subject with you is impossible, I can, and will, simply ignore anything that you post that quotes my post or disagrees with me. I would prefer not to consider myself compelled to to that.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> unaware of what might be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and where one might have such a "reasonable expectation".


"(B) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would *not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place*." - key word REGARDLESS



Another Uber Driver said:


> prohibits the use of cameras in busses, limousines or taxicabs


That's because in a bus you have the driver and maybe more passengers, and in a limo or taxicab you also have a driver present which is a stranger and nobody can define that space as "private" and you know it (when a driver is present, as it is today) - "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a TNC car."



Another Uber Driver said:


> Why do you think that dashcams are allowed?


Doesn't have anything to do with our topic as long as the car is driven by a driver.



Another Uber Driver said:


> require that you notify the prospective customer as to the presence of said recording device and that he will be photographed, As long as there is notification, the prospective customer can then make an informed choice as to whether he will engage the service, or not.


And how about the customer covering the camera? Is that illegal or not? What does the owner of the car do in case the customer covers the camera? Tell you what; the moment that camera is covered and is not recording the "evidence", is no way to prove that customer did something, if they did MORE than only covering the camera. And speculating is only for discussion forums, doesn't apply in court.



Another Uber Driver said:


> disconnected "facts" to support your disagreements


I am affraid now I can ask you where are the self driving cars AND what "disconnected facts", and you'll exit the discussion again, like you did before.



Another Uber Driver said:


> my past efforts' being in vain.


What efforts? You are a funny bloke, I'll give you that.



Another Uber Driver said:


> I can, and will, simply ignore


Of course. Do you want me to count the should's, could's and would's (will's) again? There are 6 of them in 16 lines of text (one every 2.6 lines). You're improving.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> "(B) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the individual would *not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place*." - key word REGARDLESS
> 
> That's because in a bus you have the driver and maybe more passengers, and in a limo or taxicab you also have a driver present which is a stranger and nobody can define that space as "private" and you know it (when a driver is present, as it is today) - "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a TNC car."
> 
> Doesn't have anything to do with our topic as long as the car is driven by a driver.
> 
> I am affraid now I can ask you where are the self driving cars AND what "disconnected facts", and you'll exit the discussion again, like you did before.
> 
> What efforts? You are a funny bloke, I'll give you that.
> 
> Of course. Do you want me to count the should's, could's and would's (will's) again? There are 6 of them. You're improving.


It is not expected that anyone would engage the services of a transportation company with the intent of exposing any of his "private areas". This is not the purpose of a motor vehicle. You remind me of something that one of my former neighbours showed me. It was a kit for a model of a building. On it, there was a disclaimer that read "Our Legal Department says that we have to tell you not to eat these kits......" I just have to wonder about anyone who would go into a hobby store looking for a hamburger. It reminds me of the punch line of the "Yimca Hotel" joke. You mention a "funny bloke"...........

If someone unzips his pants in a self driving car or takes off her blouse, that is on the disrobing person.

In a TNC car you might have more passengers. Currently they call it Uber Pool, Lyft Line and VIA.

It has everything to do with it be there a driver or none. The purpose of a dressing room is for people to undress. In order to use it properly, you must undress, at least partially. In order to use a bathroom properly, you must undress, at least partially. You need not undress in order to use a conveyance properly, The camera will be present to ensure that you use the conveyance properly.

You have failed to demonstrate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy in a conveyance for hire, even if it has no driver.

I exited the last discussion because you were presenting irrational text. Present rational text, and I will continue.

The last little disagreement was that effort(s).

In the quote to which your last quoted sentence is connected, the use of "will" is in a future indicative. The use of "can" is present indicative. Neither of these are conditionals that you mention.

As for my past use of conditionals, you missed it then, and, likely will miss it now, but, it should have been obvious that the whole topic was theoretical. People were raising objections as to how something could not be done and others were stating that indeed it could be done. The premise was theoretical from the beginning. That invites the use of conditionals and various subjunctives.

The things are here and are doing the jobs for which they were intended. They are not in widespread use, yet, as they can not be, because, if nothing else, there is no infrastructure to support their widespread use. It took some time for automobiles to replace horses and the railroads for a similar reason. Ford built his first car in 1896. He built four, two of which still run and a third exists but does not run. You still saw horses and waggons/buggies into the 1930s. People were using the railroads for long trips into the 1950s (some still do, but far fewer) Why? Because there were not enough service facilities in existence for cars to be driven very far. The roads were poor and tore up even the tyres. Until about 1946, if you drove from Washington to Baltimore and did not have to change a tyre at least once, you were doing well. You carried a couple of spares because you needed them. Now, the cars do not even come with spares.

I do not believe that the things will be in widespread use yesterday, as do some on these Boards. Conversely, I do not believe that they are one hundred years away, either.

If you want to cavil about the finer points of syntax, semantics, grammar, rhetoric and wordsmithy, you have picked the right guy. My last go-round with you on that was a poke at your cavilry on the subject, but, obviously, and, not surprisingly, it went over your cyberhead.


----------



## Sydney Uber

jocker12 said:


> Elon Musk had this crazy vision -  "You will also be able to add your car to the Tesla shared fleet just by tapping a button on the Tesla phone app and have it *generate income for you while you're at work or on vacation*, significantly offsetting and at times potentially exceeding the monthly loan or lease cost. This dramatically lowers the true cost of ownership to the point where almost anyone could own a Tesla. Since most cars are only in use by their owner for 5% to 10% of the day, the fundamental economic utility of a true self-driving car is likely to be several times that of a car which is not."
> 
> Of course all the idiots were jumping to the ceiling, dreaming how their poverty and lack of basic common sense will be resolved by the futuristic Tesla's, running in AutoPilot mode. Nobody thought what a child with a razor blade, some diarrhea or some vomit could do in 10 seconds to their beloved self driving robot.


Lower the odds of that happening and just run your premium car in the premium fleet. Cost of entry does filter out 99% of the problem riders.



Oscar Levant said:


> The may be "here" but their share of the market is miniscule. Talk to me when they have 50% of the market. It assumes that 50% of the market will want them. I say they won't.


Unfortunately, that's the same dismissive attitude Taxi industry management had towards "Rideshare" back in 2012.

Look what has happened since.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> It is not expected that anyone would engage the services of a transportation company with the intent of exposing any of his "private areas".


Nobody is claiming that, but getting in a vehicle or enclosed space with no other person present like the driver in a car, creates (some people will say) a false sense of privacy, or (some other people will say) a real sense of privacy, depending on every individual set of values. Unless you put a big screen in front of those people to show them their own image that is being recorded by the cameras (for them to clearly understand they are under surveillance/watch), they are not aware of it because their brains are not processing that detail as primary information. Besides that, arguably 30% of the raiders (mostly based on the time of day) are more or less intoxicated, and unable to properly understand the message, and in this case, anybody can say the owner of that vehicle/enclosed space is taking advantage of the riders situation.

Most importantly, by installing cameras inside a car without a driver reflects owners assumption the riders will do something against the company policies or straight against the law, BEFORE the riders eventually even got inside the cars. As a company, you cannot enforce video surveillance only because you assume "innocent" people will behave like wild animals the moment they will enter your cars.

Take the movie theaters example because is the closest it can be. A group of people get inside a big room to watch a movie, they grab popcorn, juice, hotdogs, candies, burgers, chocolate or whatever inside that room, the lights go off (this is the moment when the brain switches to the false or real sense of privacy) and they start watching the movie and consume their food and drinks. At the end of the show is a mess everywhere. Are there any infrared cameras to record the spectators and charge them for their own mess? No. What are the owners surrendered to? Charge higher fees to cover the cleaning, which is relatively much easier to be done than if the same situation happens in 100 individual cars spread out all over the city. People making a mess (and not necessarily exposing themselves) is a REALITY and cannot be overcome by illegally and abusively installing surveillance video cameras all over the place.



Another Uber Driver said:


> The camera will be present to ensure that you use the conveyance properly.


NO. The security cameras are installed to make sure the customers do not take products inside those rooms, cut the packages or remove the tags, and leave the store without paying for them. It is based on loss control reports and previously hard evidence specifically found inside those spaces. When is about the mess, which in a car without a driver would be a big issue, companies could do nothing.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You have failed to demonstrate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy in a conveyance for hire, even if it has no driver.


Go back to my movie theaters human behaviour example or go read this book - Protecting privacy in surveillance societies - https://books.google.com/books?id=LGWVAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
And by the way, if you never learned about human psychology I cannot do anything to rectify your error. You have to do it by studying the topic, not by asking other users to "demonstrate" something because you are not educated enough about it.



Another Uber Driver said:


> the whole topic was theoretical.


This is another detail you like to play with because it puts you in a position from where you can be evasive enough to deflect responsibility for your statements. Almost every single thing you say about self driving cars technology or cars is a theory, or fantasy, or delusion, or your dreams. When I lay down actual facts and reports or what the reality shows at this moment, your answer is coming from your imagination, showing us a bias caused by your disconnection from reality. When you say "it can be done" you have to add "in theory" at the beginning, because if I say "we can travel at the speed of light" and I am not mentioning how that is *only *in "theory", any reader or listener will think I need to take a break and consult a doctor.



Another Uber Driver said:


> f you want to cavil about the finer points of syntax, semantics, grammar, rhetoric and wordsmithy, you have picked the right guy.


Allow me to give an advice - Stick with what you know and if you like to understand technology, law and human behavior, go back to school. You know how learning is something only idiots like to ignore and dismiss.


----------



## Uber's Guber

jocker12 said:


> However, nobody seemed to realize that these vehicles will eventually become little more than* mobile toilets*.


So then, the only difference the pax will notice is: the lack of driver.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> but getting in a vehicle or enclosed space with no other person present like the driver in a car, creates (some people will say) a *false* sense of privacy, or (some other people will say) a real sense of privacy, *depending on every individual set of values*. Unless you put a big screen in front of those people to show them their own image that is being recorded by the cameras (for them to clearly understand they are under surveillance/watch), they are not aware of it because their *brains are not processing that detail as primary information*.
> 
> 30% of the raiders (mostly based on the time of day) are more or less intoxicated, and unable to properly understand the message, and in this case, anybody can say the owner of that vehicle/enclosed space is taking advantage of the riders situation.
> 
> Most importantly, by installing cameras inside a car without a driver reflects owners assumption the riders will do something against the company policies or straight against the law, BEFORE the riders eventually even got inside the cars.
> 
> As a company, you cannot *enforce* video surveillance only because you assume "innocent" people will behave like wild animals the moment they will enter your cars.
> 
> Take the movie theaters example because is the closest it can be. A *group* of people get inside a big room to watch a movie, they grab popcorn, juice, hotdogs, candies, burgers, chocolate At the end of the show is a mess everywhere.
> 
> You have to do it by studying the topic, not by asking other users to "demonstrate" something because you are not educated enough about it.
> 
> Almost every single thing you say about self driving cars technology or cars is a theory, or fantasy, or delusion, or your dreams. When I lay down what I call "actual" facts and reports or what the and tell you that it is reality I expect you to believe me because I said so.  shows at this moment, your answer is coming from your imagination, showing us a bias caused by your disconnection from reality.
> 
> When you say "it can be done" you have to add "in theory" at the beginning, because if I say "we can travel at the speed of light" and I am not mentioning how that is *only *in "theory", any reader or listener will think I need to take a break and consult a doctor.
> 
> Allow me to give an advice - Stick with what you know and if you like to understand technology, law and human behavior, go back to school. You know how learning is something only idiots like to ignore and dismiss.


(emphases mine; red text and strikes are editorial--to reflect reality)

In the first quoted sentence fragment, even you admit that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when you board a driverless vehicle for hire. Perhaps the Legal Department of the providers will require the huge screen in the vehicles. The use of "perhaps" is necessary, here, as, if the TNCs have discussed this matter, they have not made pubic those discussions. Thus, the best that we, on the outside looking it, can do is speculate. The use of "perhaps" indicates speculation. Finally (on that group of sentences and fragments), the provider is not responsible for the lack of brain function of the passengers. As long as the notice is posted in what is designated as a "conspicuous place", that satisfies any notification requirement. The customer's failure to heed duly given notice does not bring automatic exposure to the provider.

People are held responsible for their actions when they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There are specific times when they are not, such as in the case of consent to sexual activity, but, even that has yet to be fully resolved or clarified. A good lawyer in front of the right judge and jury could argue that if you can hold someone responsible for driving, assault or destruction of property while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you can hold the same person responsible for the sexual activity to which she consented, at the time. ....or....try this.............if a woman can not give consent to sexual activity when she is under the influence of alcohol, then how can someone consent to talking to the police in the absence of a lawyer when the same is under the influence of alcohol?

No one is "enforcing" the video camera. If the vehicle owner wants it, he can install it. If he wants to take the cheap way out, he can suffer the consequences of that. Further, by the logic of your arguments, a convenience store owner can not install cameras in his place of business because he is not allowed to assume that his customers will engage in "criminal conduct". If there is a jurisdiction in the United States that prohibits a convenience store owner from using cameras, please let me know where it is.

Your theatre analogy breaks down more than once. First, we have a large group of people in a larger space. The self driving car has a small group of people in a (relatively) confined space. This leads to the second breakdown of your analogy in that it is impractical to monitor every action of every patron in a crowded larger space. For that reason, the theatre owner expects that there will be a mess to clean and compensates accordingly. Either he hires employees to clean or he contracts with a service. The cost of those employees or the service is reflected in the price of the sodas, popcorn and Sugar Babies (most of the ticket price goes to pay for the movie; very little goes into the theatre owner's pocket). Thus, everyone pays for the cost of cleaning his mess in the theatre whether he makes on, or does not. Further, the theatre owner allows for downtime to clean. He recovers the cost of downtime in the price of the Sno-Cones, Junior Mints and hot dogs. This is why you pay so much for popcorn and soda at the movie house. The soda is a great money maker, as the cost of the syrup and water is negligible, relatively.

The conveyance, on the other hand, can be more practically monitored. If the owner were to charge every patron an allowance for downtime and cleaning, he would price the service out of its market. This is why you charge only those who make a mess for cleaning.

The sentence beginning with "You have to.........." earns you the "HUH?" button.

FIFY

Before I treat the last group of sentences, let me stop this post here, lest I exceed the character limit. I will treat the last group of sentences in a subsequent post.

When I state that something "can be done", the "in theory" is implied. It would be redundant to state "It can be done in theory". Had something actually been done in pratice, the correct way to express that would be "it has been done", or, possibly "something similar has been done".

As to your "advice": take your own.

(It appears that the programming for the forum has automatically combined my two posts).


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> (emphases mine; red text and strikes are editorial--to reflect reality)
> 
> In the first quoted sentence fragment, even you admit that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when you board a driverless vehicle for hire. Perhaps the Legal Department of the providers will require the huge screen in the vehicles. The use of "perhaps" is necessary, here, as, if the TNCs have discussed this matter, they have not made pubic those discussions. Thus, the best that we, on the outside looking it, can do is speculate. The use of "perhaps" indicates speculation. Finally (on that group of sentences and fragments), the provider is not responsible for the lack of brain function of the passengers. As long as the notice is posted in what is designated as a "conspicuous place", that satisfies any notification requirement. The customer's failure to heed duly given notice does not bring automatic exposure to the provider.
> 
> People are held responsible for their actions when they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There are specific times when they are not, such as in the case of consent to sexual activity, but, even that has yet to be fully resolved or clarified. A good lawyer in front of the right judge and jury could argue that if you can hold someone responsible for driving, assault or destruction of property while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you can hold the same person responsible for the sexual activity to which she consented, at the time. ....or....try this.............if a woman can not give consent to sexual activity when she is under the influence of alcohol, then how can someone consent to talking to the police in the absence of a lawyer when the same is under the influence of alcohol?
> 
> No one is "enforcing" the video camera. If the vehicle owner wants it, he can install it. If he wants to take the cheap way out, he can suffer the consequences of that. Further, by the logic of your arguments, a convenience store owner can not install cameras in his place of business because he is not allowed to assume that his customers will engage in "criminal conduct". If there is a jurisdiction in the United States that prohibits a convenience store owner from using cameras, please let me know where it is.
> 
> Your theatre analogy breaks down more than once. First, we have a large group of people in a larger space. The self driving car has a small group of people in a (relatively) confined space. This leads to the second breakdown of your analogy in that it is impractical to monitor every action of every patron in a crowded larger space. For that reason, the theatre owner expects that there will be a mess to clean and compensates accordingly. Either he hires employees to clean or he contracts with a service. The cost of those employees or the service is reflected in the price of the sodas, popcorn and Sugar Babies (most of the ticket price goes to pay for the movie; very little goes into the theatre owner's pocket). Thus, everyone pays for the cost of cleaning his mess in the theatre whether he makes on, or does not. Further, the theatre owner allows for downtime to clean. He recovers the cost of downtime in the price of the Sno-Cones, Junior Mints and hot dogs. This is why you pay so much for popcorn and soda at the movie house. The soda is a great money maker, as the cost of the syrup and water is negligible, relatively.
> 
> The conveyance, on the other hand, can be more practically monitored. If the owner were to charge every patron an allowance for downtime and cleaning, he would price the service out of its market. This is why you charge only those who make a mess for cleaning.
> 
> The sentence beginning with "You have to.........." earns you the "HUH?" button.
> 
> FIFY
> 
> Before I treat the last group of sentences, let me stop this post here, lest I exceed the character limit. I will treat the last group of sentences in a subsequent post.
> 
> When I state that something "can be done", the "in theory" is implied. It would be redundant to state "It can be done in theory". Had something actually been done in pratice, the correct way to express that would be "it has been done", or, possibly "something similar has been done".
> 
> As to your "advice": take your own.
> 
> (It appears that the programming for the forum has automatically combined my two posts).


It is funny and disturbing how you try to rationalize and explain your inclination to elaborate on theories, or fantasies, or dreams, or delusions.

You are like a man that spent the last 30 years in clinical death, and after he suddenly came back from that unfortunate condition, he tries to convince all the people how he actually was alive in a different dimension, had kids, a wife and a spaceship he used to travel up and down that universe.

All you bring to the discussion, when is about self driving cars and technology, is hypothetic, while most of us here underline the harsh reality of this oxymoron. Even if some posts are referring to a dark perspective, like this article, everything is based on the acknowledgment of real human behaviour, as it really is.

You seem to have a hard time understanding how even if a theory looks legit on paper, like traveling at the speed of light, in reality that is impossible. And as long you will try to deviate from being responsible for your statements, saying how you are only expressing theories, you dismiss yourself from the logic.

Now I will give you the same advice twice, an opportunity for you to admit how learning and education it will improve you as an individual, and not useless technologies pushed by corporations for their own benefit.

I will mention how you mistakingly tried to soften our discussion about the distance between our approaches, by commenting - "I do not like these self-driving cars any more than you do." but the problem is I essentially don't have a problem with the product, because this product is one of many previous or to come aberrations. My problem is with the lie (reason for what I've told you to stop expressing your "theories") propagated by an unnecessary industry in order to artificially create "the next big thing" and usurp it's place in the field of transportation.

P.S.


Another Uber Driver said:


> by the logic of your arguments, a convenience store owner can not install cameras in his place of business because he is not allowed to assume that his customers will engage in "criminal conduct".


 A convenience store is not an environment that creates a false or a real sense of privacy. A movie theater, when the light goes off, is.


----------



## tohunt4me

jeanocelot said:


> This won't be a problem. The seats will be easy-clean plastic, and there passenger compartment could be cleaned like a self-cleaning public toilet. Or do you all think that a society that can develop a driverless car can't figure out how to design the passenger compartment of efficient cleaning like said toilet? There will also be cameras with the admonition "cameras are recording all activity". And finally, if the compartment is not clean, the customer will be able to reject it, at which time, it would go back to the station to be thoroughly cleaned, probably hiring some of the current Uber drivers who will be thrown out of work.
> 
> Now that said, there still could be a demand for the hire of a ride in a nice car, and that could still be sourced from the current owner-operator Uber driver, for a premium of course. There could also be private networks of folks who own driverless cars - or buy into it in some way - who share their rides with other folks, folks that have been vetted as not being disgusting slimeballs that consider their ride to be a toilet. There could be even something like a "passenger cleanliness score" that every customer has, and from which pricing is determined - i.e., here the added cost would be due to the expected cost of cleaning up after the passenger as opposed to the added cost to someone with a low credit score because of the expected value of a default.
> 
> Also, the driverless care revolution will bring back mass transit with a bang, as the "last mile" problem will be eliminated, so the chances of someone messing up a car will be much less.
> 
> The system will figure out that the camera has been tampered with and will stop, and a cop will show up. Folks might still do it, but it will be like tampering with the smoke alarm in an aircraft toilet.
> 
> BTW, the institution that certifies that an new atomic element has been "discovered" (i.e., by smashing smaller atoms together) requires that the atom stay intact for 0.01 picoseconds.


The cars will smell like a stockyard.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> It is funny and disturbing.............. behaviour, as it really is.
> 
> You seem to have a hard time understanding how even if a theory looks legit on paper, like traveling at the speed of light, in reality that is impossible.
> 
> And as long you will try to deviate from being responsible for your statements, saying how you are only expressing theories, you dismiss yourself from the logic.
> 
> Now I will give you the same advice twice, an opportunity for you to admit how learning and education it will improve you as an individual, and not useless technologies pushed by corporations for their own benefit.
> 
> I will mention how you mistakingly tried to soften our discussion about the distance between our approaches, by commenting - "I do not like these self-driving cars any more than you do." but the problem is I essentially don't have a problem with the product, because this product is one of many previous or to come aberrations.
> 
> My problem is with the lie
> 
> (reason for what I've told you to stop expressing your "theories")
> 
> propagated by an unnecessary industry in order to artificially create "the next big thing" and usurp it's place in the field of transportation.
> 
> P.S.
> A convenience store is not an environment that creates a false or a real sense of privacy. A movie theater, when the light goes off, is.


HUH?

The sentence is so poorly structured that I am not sure that I understand what you mean. The last part is missing a connexion to the first.

The third sentence is vague; possibly deliberately so. It is impossible to reply to it until you clarify it.

The part after "because......." makes this incomprehensible.

Uber and Lyft are full of lies. What lie is under discussion here?

Since when did you get to dictate to me or since when did I take orders from you? You "told me to stop"????!?!?? ....and just what makes you think that I have to or am going to? I do not see an "Administrator" banner beneath your ID. As long as it is in compliance with the Rules of the Forum (you checked a box that acknowledged that you read them, remember?) I can post what I will. You can try to tell me to stop, but I will not. I will post what I will. If you do not like it, do not read it. I do not know what gave you the idea that you get to tell me to stop anything. Permit me to disabuse you of that, now.

I might agree with what goes before the P.S., if it were typed in a manner that someone could actually understand it.

Oh, and P.S., by your use of "false" sense of privacy, you admit that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the theatre. Further, you fail to address the differences in numbers of patrons and what that requires or might require.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> HUH?
> 
> The sentence is so poorly structured that I am not sure that I understand what you mean. The last part is missing a connexion to the first.
> 
> The third sentence is vague; possibly deliberately so. It is impossible to reply to it until you clarify it.
> 
> The part after "because......." makes this incomprehensible.
> 
> Uber and Lyft are full of lies. What lie is under discussion here?
> 
> Since when did you get to dictate to me or since when did I take orders from you? You "told me to stop"????!?!?? ....and just what makes you think that I have to or am going to? I do not see an "Administrator" banner beneath your ID. As long as it is in compliance with the Rules of the Forum (you checked a box that acknowledged that you read them, remember?) I can post what I will. You can try to tell me to stop, but I will not. I will post what I will. If you do not like it, do not read it. I do not know what gave you the idea that you get to tell me to stop anything. Permit me to disabuse you of that, now.
> 
> I might agree with what goes before the P.S., if it were typed in a manner that someone could actually understand it.
> 
> Oh, and P.S., by your use of "false" sense of privacy, you admit that there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the theatre. Further, you fail to address the differences in numbers of patrons and what that requires or might require.


You do understand how 70% of your comment is completely off topic, do you? And according to those rules, if you can post whatever you want, any user can do the same, including telling you to stop repeating corporate stinky propaganda, correct? I see your relative fear of "the authority", but let me whisper you a secret - the authority is there to first and foremost serve the community. *Authority* is related to your position which you posses, while *power *is the real inner strength of an individual. So let me clarify it for you - I have the power and I am not interested in the authority, so I don't need a ridiculous badge or banner.

Learning gives you the power, while technology is only a tool in the process.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> You do understand how 70% of your comment is completely off topic, do you?


No, your post is off-topic because it is full of _*ad hominem*_ attacks instead of discussions of my points. I will not respond to your _*ad hominem*_ attacks. If you want to continue discussing the points, post something about them. The only thing that an _*ad hominem*_ attack demonstrates is that the person from whom it originates has run out of coherent arguments against the points with which he disagrees.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> No, your post is off-topic because it is full of _*ad hominem*_ attacks instead of discussions of my points. I will not respond to your _*ad hominem*_ attacks. If you want to continue discussing the points, post something about them. The only thing that an _*ad hominem*_ attack demonstrates is that the person from whom it originates has run out of coherent arguments against the points with which he disagrees.


If there is somebody that attacks you is you. As long as you keep posting fantasies or repeated propaganda, in spiritum you believe you are on topic, but in factum you are way off topic because dreams don't matter.

I can go further and mention how refused service customers (for covering the cameras in the cars, reason for the car to stop - as you IMAGINED), will trash any cars belonging to the same rideshare platform once they will find them waiting for other people, or just chilling around the city. You would imagine I speculate, but I cannot afford that.

Do you know how angry passengers are slamming the doors of Uber and Lyft cars today when they get irritated? Do you know how passengers insult or attack drivers for basically nothing, only because they felt how something went wrong (possibly they've considered they've waited too long for the car to show up)? Do you remember the girl that took money from an uber driver's tip jar, only because she wanted to make a joke or she was stupid? Well, the same people, once refused service for any reason, will retaliate. Not on the spot, when the system has their information as users close to that moment in time. Nooooo. They will retaliate every single time they will see a stationary car with the same logo on it, only to brake it even with the company.

And the first thing I can think of is deflating or puncturing the tires. Or grab a rock and brake a window. Or make a long scratch on the the paint with a sharp key from their pocket. There are things they can do from the distance, and not be recorded or detected, or things they can do right by the car, in a group of nonmembers friends of the disappointed initial user.

Do you really think any company wants to alienate it's customers to the point they will refuse service (stop the car at the beginning or in the middle of a ride) only because two college kids covered (which again is not a crime) some surveillance cameras in a self driving car, Saturday night, after they got a little drunk and wanted to fool around before they've got home? That will be insane and totally counterproductive.

People trashing the cars when no individual - the driver/owner is present is unavoidable, and it can't be reasonable resolved for and by any rideshare company.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> *1. *If there is somebody that attacks you is you.
> 
> *2. *As long as you keep posting fantasies
> 
> *3. *or repeated propaganda, in spiritum you believe you are on topic, but in factum you are way off topic because dreams don't matter.
> 
> *4. *I can go further and mention how refused service customers (for covering the cameras in the cars, reason for the car to stop - as you IMAGINED), will trash any cars belonging to the same rideshare platform once they will find them waiting for other people, or just chilling around the city.
> 
> *5. *You would imagine I speculate, but I cannot afford that.
> 
> *6. *Do you know how angry passengers are slamming the doors of Uber and Lyft cars today when they get irritated?
> 
> *7. *People trashing the cars when no individual - the driver/owner is present is unavoidable, and it can't be reasonable resolved for and by any rideshare company.


1. This makes no sense, is unsubstantiated and has no basis in fact.

2. There is a difference between "fantasy" and "possibility"....more on that subsequently.

3. You fail to support your accusation that what I post is propaganda. Further, your use of Latin phrases, here, is incorrect. The preposition "_*in*_", when used with the accusative case, as you have used it (_*spiritum and factum*_) implies motion towards and usually translates as "into"*. The correct use would be with the ablative case, thus "_*in spiritu*_" and "_*in facto*_" would be correct. This assumes, that someone can make sense out of Number Three, which is extremely difficult, as it fails to convey the point that I suspect its writer is attempting to convey. More on Numbers two and three *infra..........
*
4. In the interest of brevity, I have edited out most of your speculation on what could happen if a customer is angry at a TNC. What you have posted is speculation, theory, possibility: the very things for which you take me to task; not only in numbers two and three, but in many previous posts that you have made.. There are several names for that. Two of them are "hypocrisy" and "double standards".

5. This makes no sense; please clarify.

6. Again, I have edited out your speculation, in the interest of brevity. Again, you take me to task for advancing theories and for speculating, yet you do the same thing for which you damn me. Again, two of the names for that kind of "arguing" are hypocrisy and double standards.

7. You provide no facts to substantiate the second part of this.

* The Latin verb, _*credere*_, "to believe", often takes a peculiar construction with _*in*_, with the accusative case, to signify "to believe in_______".
Hence, the Nicene Creed: *Credo in unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae..............
*
The genitives, "_*caeli*_" and "_*terrae*_" (heaven and earth), would, of course, be "objective" genitives as objects of "_*factorem*_"; "maker".


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. This makes no sense, is unsubstantiated and has no basis in fact.
> 
> 2. There is a difference between "fantasy" and "possibility"....more on that subsequently.
> 
> 3. You fail to support your accusation that what I post is propaganda. Further, your use of Latin phrases, here, is incorrect. The preposition "_*in*_", when used with the accusative case, as you have used it (_*spiritum and factum*_) implies motion towards and usually translates as "into"*. The correct use would be with the ablative case, thus "_*in spiritu*_" and "_*in facto*_" would be correct. This assumes, that someone can make sense out of Number Three, which is extremely difficult, as it fails to convey the point that I suspect its writer is attempting to convey. More on Numbers two and three *infra..........
> *
> 4. In the interest of brevity, I have edited out most of your speculation on what could happen if a customer is angry at a TNC. What you have posted is speculation, theory, possibility: the very things for which you take me to task; not only in numbers two and three, but in many previous posts that you have made.. There are several names for that. Two of them are "hypocrisy" and "double standards".
> 
> 5. This makes no sense; please clarify.
> 
> 6. Again, I have edited out your speculation, in the interest of brevity. Again, you take me to task for advancing theories and for speculating, yet you do the same thing for which you damn me. Again, two of the names for that kind of "arguing" are hypocrisy and double standards.
> 
> 7. You provide no facts to substantiate the second part of this.
> 
> * The Latin verb, _*credere*_, "to believe", often takes a peculiar construction with _*in*_, with the accusative case, to signify "to believe in_______".
> Hence, the Nicene Creed: *Credo in unum Deum, patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae..............
> *
> The genitives, "_*caeli*_" and "_*terrae*_" (heaven and earth), would, of course, be "objective" genitives as objects of "_*factorem*_"; "maker".


Hahahaha.... Oooops.... could you stay on topic, which is - Self-driving Taxis Will Become the Most Disgusting Spaces on Earth? Sorry for this bold turn, but it looks like for you, Latin and self driving cars potentially becoming moving toilets are two interrelated subjects, and I am afraid I am missing the link here.

I didn't want you to feel disrespected, but at the same time I don't want us to argue about Aristotle or Plato and entertain the entire forum here.

So, let me use your words to be effective - "If you want to continue discussing the points, post something about them." If you have anything else, please address it, because my next comment will be about your number 2, 3 - the first sentence, 4, 5, 6, and 7.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> in spiritum in factum





jocker12 said:


> Hahahaha.... Oooops.... could you stay on topic, which is - Self-driving Taxis Will Become the Most Disgusting Spaces on Earth?
> 
> I don't want us to argue about Aristotle or Plato and entertain the entire forum here.
> 
> So, let me use your words to be effective - "If you want to continue discussing the points, post something about them."


The first quoted post contains _*YOUR*_ words, not mine. You posted those words. They are Latin. You used them improperly. I replied to YOUR words and YOUR use thereof.............again, you take me to task for the very thing that you do.

You have made mention of Aristotle and Plato, You are the first one to mention Aristotle and Plato. I have not mentioned Aristotle and Plato, until now, AFTER you had mentioned them. Aristotle and Plato were Greeks; specifically Athenians. They spoke (and wrote) Greek, not Latin. In fact, it is doubtful that they ever had heard of Rome, as Rome was, while they were alive, an overgrown village fighting with its neighbours and had not expanded beyond Central Italy. The territories under its sway were probably the equivalent size of the Papal States just before 1860. You mentioned these two. I am replying to your mention of these two.

You did post some points about self driving cars becoming [Trump's description of certain Third World nations]. They were mostly speculation and theoretical; the very things for which you take me to task. I replied to them.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> The first quoted post contains _*YOUR*_ words, not mine. You posted those words. They are Latin. You used them improperly. I replied to YOUR words and YOUR use thereof.............again, you take me to task for the very thing that you do.
> 
> You have made mention of Aristotle and Plato, You are the first one to mention Aristotle and Plato. I have not mentioned Aristotle and Plato, until now, AFTER you had mentioned them. Aristotle and Plato were Greeks; specifically Athenians. They spoke (and wrote) Greek, not Latin. In fact, it is doubtful that they ever had heard of Rome, as Rome was, while they were alive, an overgrown village fighting with its neighbours and had not expanded beyond Central Italy. The territories under its sway were probably the equivalent size of the Papal States just before 1860. You mentioned these two. I am replying to your mention of these two.
> 
> You did post some points about self driving cars becoming [Trump's description of certain Third World nations]. They were mostly speculation and theoretical; the very things for which you take me to task. I replied to them.


2. What is that? (please try to remain focused on our topic, OK?)
3. "*Corporate propaganda* refers to propaganda disseminated by a corporation (or corporations), for the purpose of manipulating public opinion concerning to that corporation, and its activities. The use of corporate propaganda can be commonly found in the fields of advertising, marketing, politics, history, and public relations. "
"Waymo's fully self-driving vehicles are here" is one of the best examples of BS corporate propaganda, which you keep repeating over and over again.
Please explain where here, because if you and the corporate propaganda are correct, that means the UFO's are here (there are more UFO's sights reported than self driving cars sights) and also the cancer, HIV and AIDS cure medication is here (while there are existing cases of remission or even cure of those deadly diseases).
4. "Two of them are "hypocrisy" and "double standards" - you need to be specific about what you are referring to, otherwise you are imagining things again.
5. A logical person takes calculated risks (that he/she can afford in the context) or not. Unfortunately for you, most of what you post about self driving cars and technology, is NOT a calculated risk given the reality, so you DISCREDIT yourself.
6. "you take me to task for advancing theories and for speculating, yet you do the same thing for which you damn me" - be more specific. My opinions are based on PROVEN human behavior, media reports, PROVEN corporate behaviour and consumer behaviour, published academic studies, and official court or local authorities documents.
7. "and it can't be reasonable resolved for and by any rideshare company." - one of the main reasons is the cost of all this. The second is the fact that those cars, in order to avoid customer service as accepted by the American consumers and promoted by the companies in the US, need to be checked after EVERY single ride, which makes the process virtually impossible if you want to cover large areas (the need of a huge amount of well equipped cleaning stations to cover that area takes you back to the entire cost which every single business has to deal with, even if you like to ignore it or not).

P.S. Who said Aristotle and Plato spoke latin? See how you jump on conclusions (trigger happy) and expose yourself to harsh criticism? And please stop using latin because I am going to answer in Klingon.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> 2. What is that? (please try to remain focused on our topic, OK?)
> 3. "Waymo's fully self-driving vehicles are here" is one of the best examples of BS corporate propaganda, which you keep repeating over and over again.
> 
> 4. "Two of them are "hypocrisy" and "double standards" - you need to be specific about what you are referring to, otherwise you are imagining things again.
> 5. A logical person takes calculated risks (that he/she can afford in the context) or not.
> 6. "you take me to task for advancing theories and for speculating, yet you do the same thing for which you damn me" - be more specific.
> 7. "and it can't be reasonable resolved for and by any rideshare company." -
> 
> P.S. Who said Aristotle and Plato spoke latin? See how you jump on conclusions (trigger happy) and expose yourself to harsh criticism? And please stop using latin because I am going to answer in Klingon.


This is a bit old and I had lost interest. The post, however, is so funny that it begs for a response.

2. If you have a problem with an interlocutor's responding to words that you posted, perhaps an internet forum might be a bit too much for you to handle. Your responses that lash out blindly, contain no logical counter arguments and _*ad hominem*_ attacks do suggest that. I posted a response to your words. If your words are off-topic, that is on you as you posted them; not I. If you do not want me to respond to your words, do not post them. Is that difficult?

3. Is Waymo operating self-driving vehicles in Phoenix or is it not? If it is, they are here. If it is not operating them in Phoenix, is it operating them anywhere else? If it is, they are here. If it is not, Waymo's self driving vehicles are not here. Someone else's might be if Waymo is not operating them. As for my "repeating over and over again" that Waymo's self driving vehicles are here, that is false. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster? The statements on UFOs is disconnected and off-topic. You take me to task for allegedly being off-topic while you go off topic at will.

4. I was specific about that to which I referred: in case it was TL;dr, here it is: you speculated about what might happen to "self-driving taxis". You are speculating. As you are posting the speculation, you must think that your speculating is acceptable. You take me to task for speculating. Do you see the conflict, here? The conflict is that while you consider it acceptable to speculate, you do not consider it acceptable for anyone else to do so. My remark about "hypocrisy" and "double standards" stands.

5. Your "clarification" is even more cloudy than your original statements.

6. Please cite this "proof".

7. The sentence structure in this is so poor that I can make little, if any sense out of it.

P.S.-You mentioned Aristotle and Plato in connexion with my discussion on Latin grammar. Again, I am responding to your words. You connected Aristotle and Plato with Latin grammar. Thus, it is not I who is "jumping on conclusions" [_*sic*_]. I "expose myself to harsh criticism" because I will not conform to your opinions. I am not going to conform to those opinions as you have failed to convince me of their validity. There are certain expressions in foreign languages that have come into use in the English Language. One such expression is _*ad hominem*_ attack. It means that one's language attacks the person advancing the arguments rather than the argument itself.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> This is a bit old and I had lost interest. The post, however, is so funny that it begs for a response.
> 
> 2. If you have a problem with an interlocutor's responding to words that you posted, perhaps an internet forum might be a bit too much for you to handle. Your responses that lash out blindly, contain no logical counter arguments and _*ad hominem*_ attacks do suggest that. I posted a response to your words. If your words are off-topic, that is on you as you posted them; not I. If you do not want me to respond to your words, do not post them. Is that difficult?
> 
> 3. Is Waymo operating self-driving vehicles in Phoenix or is it not? If it is, they are here. If it is not operating them in Phoenix, is it operating them anywhere else? If it is, they are here. If it is not, Waymo's self driving vehicles are not here. Someone else's might be if Waymo is not operating them. As for my "repeating over and over again" that Waymo's self driving vehicles are here, that is false. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster? The statements on UFOs is disconnected and off-topic. You take me to task for allegedly being off-topic while you go off topic at will.
> 
> 4. I was specific about that to which I referred: in case it was TL;dr, here it is: you speculated about what might happen to "self-driving taxis". You are speculating. As you are posting the speculation, you must think that your speculating is acceptable. You take me to task for speculating. Do you see the conflict, here? The conflict is that while you consider it acceptable to speculate, you do not consider it acceptable for anyone else to do so. My remark about "hypocrisy" and "double standards" stands.
> 
> 5. Your "clarification" is even more cloudy than your original statements.
> 
> 6. Please cite this "proof".
> 
> 7. The sentence structure in this is so poor that I can make little, if any sense out of it.
> 
> P.S.-You mentioned Aristotle and Plato in connexion with my discussion on Latin grammar. Again, I am responding to your words. You connected Aristotle and Plato with Latin grammar. Thus, it is not I who is "jumping on conclusions" [_*sic*_]. I "expose myself to harsh criticism" because I will not conform to your opinions. I am not going to conform to those opinions as you have failed to convince me of their validity. There are certain expressions in foreign languages that have come into use in the English Language. One such expression is _*ad hominem*_ attack. It means that one's language attacks the person advancing the arguments rather than the argument itself.


Cut the mambo jumbo and focus. I guess, the nicer users tend to be with you, the more crap (your opinions) you continue to give them.

Years ago, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said -* "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."*

2. So you create this childish topic order and say at "2. There is a difference between "fantasy" and "possibility"....more on that subsequently." to which I respond "2. What is that? (please try to remain focused on our topic, OK?)" (in other words - what is that difference?), and you come up with this BS stinky bubbly manure comment "2. If you have a problem with an interlocutor's responding to words that you posted, perhaps an internet forum might be a bit too much for you to handle. Your responses that lash out blindly, contain no logical counter arguments and _*ad hominem*_ attacks do suggest that. I posted a response to your words. If your words are off-topic, that is on you as you posted them; not I. If you do not want me to respond to your words, do not post them. Is that difficult?"????????? Do you know how to follow your own comments, or just you only do mechanical typing?

3. "Is Waymo operating self-driving vehicles in Phoenix or is it not? If it is, they are here." *This is another pathetic comment about your hallucinations.* According to your logic UFO's, cancer cure, HIV cure, AIDS cure medications are here. You shoot yourself in the foot and then you start rubbing salt inside your wound and there is nobody's fault for that, or you believe so. Please put another "bullet" in your other foot and I will show you THE REAL NUMBERS to help you stop the pain (268.8 million vehicles in the US in 2016). *Do you have a SOURCE for the self driving cars "are here" BS reality you support?* Also, do you know what TESTING is and what DIFFERENCE does it make, by any chance?

4. That is BS. Be specific, period. Give me my speculation (copy and paste here) or stop the BS. As you can see, on top of this comment I've posted a quote with a hyperlink under it (the blueish color is not because I've change it, is because if you put the "mouse" on it and click it, it takes you to the SOURCE I've used, like I did every time I was referring to self driving cars and self driving cars technology).

5. More BS.

6. Check the links I've posted in my comments.

7. "one of the main reasons is the cost of all this." Again, cut the mambo jumbo.

P.S. You use the most amount of words to say NOTHING. Again, answer the simple question - *Who said Aristotle and Plato spoke Latin?*
"This is a bit old and I had lost interest." I know you like hiding behind accusations how users do not address YOUR points, so I did it. AGAIN.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> Cut the mambo jumbo .


Take your own advice.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> Take your own advice.


I thought so!


----------

