Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> with the implication that this is an alternative to car ownership and would vastly reduce the number of cars

The point I was trying to make is that you need very few idle cars on top of the ones in active use. A fraction of what suburbs already have.

It could be a vast reduction in the number of extra cars over the peak concurrent number.

> I agree although things like Uber and Zipcar have already reduced the need for lightly-used second cars which are what I mean by marginal cars.

Somewhat, but self-driving cars are more effective in multiple ways. They don't need to be nearly as cost-effective while idling, and they can come to your doorstep instead of making you walk to them. There's nothing like a zipcar near me.

> Very few people would argue that having the option of owning a vehicle capable of safe fully autonomous operation (with manual override) is a bad thing. We're just saying that having full autonomy only available as a third-party taxi service just isn't very interesting relative to today except perhaps at the margins.

I think it goes well beyond the margins if the price works out. Or maybe your definition of "margins" is a lot bigger than mine in which case we agree and even a change at the margins is a big deal.

But also, even if the average person wouldn't switch, that's different from it being utterly impractical to switch.



Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: