I don’t get this.

Many of your arguments are sound about wasteful use of pick up trucks, etc. when that’s the only vehicle owned by a family.

I guess you weren’t paying attention to the “hailing a car….” highlight in my comment on the original article. There needs to be a sufficient number of people living in a town for a company to have cars there to hail…the business model really doesn’t work for the person (or company) owning the vehicles to be hailed when the population is say 200, as in your example. Or 400, or even 1000.

The use of self-driving cars that one can hail makes ultimate sense in an urban area where the capital investment will be paid off in a couple of years when there’s a population of 100K people or more who could potentially be hailing cars. In a town of 200 people, the capital investment would be too great to make a profit. REMEMBER THIS: business is about profit; if you cannot make a profit, then the business goes under. I didn’t say all of this in my original post, as it’s implied, obliquely I guess for you. And that’s why you said in your opening comment “I don’t get this.” The highlight was the cue to my comment. Suggestion: pay closer attention…

You said in your concluding paragraph: “ In the end the biggest rebuttal to your statement may simply be that those towns you discuss will cease to exist.” To that I say…you really think so?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.