Overcoming cognitive distortions driven by emotions will be the biggest challenge to the growth of autonomous vehicles. And yet, when I think about the visions of “the future” from the entertainment of our younger years…so much of it contains automated transportation, either neutrally or positively depicted. I also want to be able to set coordinates and say “engage!” Providers of this technology need to start tapping into the uses that generate positive emotions among the public.
"it would be a misuse of the framework to conclude that all the objections here are without merit, merely because of the way they are articulated"
This is the crux of what you're arguing here. For example, when you point out that it's not all a zero-sum game, we should also note that many tech companies rarely offer the same standard of service for very long. Waymo might be much cheaper to start off; but once there is no competition, what will stop prices from rising back to current rideshare and taxi levels?
Governments will likely see an opportunity for licensing revenues. The influence of revenues from private companies in a less competitive market could also make governments dependent on those companies and less willing to enforce stricter requirements on the technology to protect public safety. When licensing requirements are tied to individual drivers, there probably isn't as much conflict between revenue and regulation. If someone isn't willing to pay licensing fees because of an objection to a condition of a licence, there is more than likely someone else who will. If a collective ownership structure like a corporation does not want to pay fees, and its failure to continue to operate will reduce capacity by a significant percentage, local government is stuck with a shortfall in transportation options or capitulation to the company's desired outcomes.
Basically, populist objections of the moment should not be dismissed because dynamics will almost certainly change after a policy decision in favour of robotaxis.
Is it "populist" to suggest, that, because roads are subsidized (yes, human drivers pay much less than it costs to build and maintain them), private companies making profits by operating AVs should pay the full cost (of road use, congestion, and cannibalization of public transport) per mileage?
Which part is "dumb": the part where AV companies undercut everyone else on publicly subsidized infrastructure, or the part that all drivers are subsidized?
Robotaxis won't get shut down like data centers, since even the most anti-progress woman has a bad story about an Uber driver. So there's a very clear, understandable pitch for why robotaxis are better that a layperson understands - Waymo isn't going to harass me or drive so poorly I'd feel safer driving drunk.
To the median voter, datacenters are just big ugly buildings for something I don't understand or care about.
Overcoming cognitive distortions driven by emotions will be the biggest challenge to the growth of autonomous vehicles. And yet, when I think about the visions of “the future” from the entertainment of our younger years…so much of it contains automated transportation, either neutrally or positively depicted. I also want to be able to set coordinates and say “engage!” Providers of this technology need to start tapping into the uses that generate positive emotions among the public.
"it would be a misuse of the framework to conclude that all the objections here are without merit, merely because of the way they are articulated"
This is the crux of what you're arguing here. For example, when you point out that it's not all a zero-sum game, we should also note that many tech companies rarely offer the same standard of service for very long. Waymo might be much cheaper to start off; but once there is no competition, what will stop prices from rising back to current rideshare and taxi levels?
Governments will likely see an opportunity for licensing revenues. The influence of revenues from private companies in a less competitive market could also make governments dependent on those companies and less willing to enforce stricter requirements on the technology to protect public safety. When licensing requirements are tied to individual drivers, there probably isn't as much conflict between revenue and regulation. If someone isn't willing to pay licensing fees because of an objection to a condition of a licence, there is more than likely someone else who will. If a collective ownership structure like a corporation does not want to pay fees, and its failure to continue to operate will reduce capacity by a significant percentage, local government is stuck with a shortfall in transportation options or capitulation to the company's desired outcomes.
Basically, populist objections of the moment should not be dismissed because dynamics will almost certainly change after a policy decision in favour of robotaxis.
Is it "populist" to suggest, that, because roads are subsidized (yes, human drivers pay much less than it costs to build and maintain them), private companies making profits by operating AVs should pay the full cost (of road use, congestion, and cannibalization of public transport) per mileage?
I dont know if its "populist" to suggest that, but it is pretty dumb
Which part is "dumb": the part where AV companies undercut everyone else on publicly subsidized infrastructure, or the part that all drivers are subsidized?
First part
Robotaxis won't get shut down like data centers, since even the most anti-progress woman has a bad story about an Uber driver. So there's a very clear, understandable pitch for why robotaxis are better that a layperson understands - Waymo isn't going to harass me or drive so poorly I'd feel safer driving drunk.
To the median voter, datacenters are just big ugly buildings for something I don't understand or care about.