Hacker News Reader

Comment by boxcardavin | Hacker News Reader

I wasn't commenting on feasibility or logistics, more on the state of their progress and if they can fully replace current services in cities or if it will augment them. If, for example, they don't work during heavy rain, then they cannot replace Uber/Lyft in most East Coast or Northern US cities.

View on HN

Actually, interestingly, perhaps that is "right-sizing" the cost of Taxi service?

Humans only at the beck and call of self-driving cars who cannot see well in the rain. Instead of "surge pricing" for high demand, it would be "human pricing" to pay for the "skilled" driver in the rain and snow.

ie: $1/mi during sunny days, $10/mi during snow days, instead of $7/mi every day of the year. Very interesting to consider, and honestly a bit scary thinking of so many people I've met who are using Uber to make a living. :-S

Labor is probably not fluid enough. I expect people to value steady income very highly. That might change if basic income was a thing though.

Very fair point and counterpoint! $100/day guaranteed is worth more than (rand()*200)/day. Consistency is worth more than variability.

A world where Google owns transportation services on the West coast and Sunbelt, and Uber/Lyft owns the East Coast and Northern cities, is a world where in 5 years Google owns transportation services everywhere. Knocking out many of Uber's most profitable markets makes its runway even shorter.

> If, for example, they don't work during heavy rain, then they cannot replace Uber/Lyft in most East Coast or Northern US cities.

Google Maps has a ridesharing comparison function built-in; you don't have to replace incumbents to undercut them when you have the advantage, and the tech will keep improving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com