Making normative suggestions in the middle of a news article is exactly the lack of integrity that I'm talking about. Rather than reporting the facts, the "journalist" is writing an opinion column without having the decency to label it as such. The validity of his opinions are irrelevant.
If people aren't sharing the vehicle there's the same number of vehicles on the same number of roads, just less need for parking spaces.
Of course, the potential for reduced accidents should help. Unfortunately, part of why AZ was probably chosen is that it's mostly sunny/clear weather during the year.
Reduced accidents. Increased time for people using self driving cars. Companies no longer needing to pay for staff that pilots cars. Just the time and cost savings alone for private people and companies is hard to be overstated.
Are the people driving really that much more expensive than the computers, tooling and infrastructure for automated cars? How do the maintenance costs compare? There's a lot more to it than just the drivers.
Initial investment is incredible. Just look at how much money and time has already been spent on trying to implement self-driving capabilities and we aren't close yet.
But once the technology is developed and available the cost will probably be pretty low. A couple of sensors and processing. I feel like maintenance cost will likely be smaller since a self driving car in theory at least can detect any issue much quicker then a human.
This is all speculation of course but human drivers are very expensive. Quick googling says about 20k to 45k per year for a truck driver. Even if initial investment in self driving technology costs 50k per unit more it's still incredibly advantageous to do so.
Would you nationalize businesses that involved movement of people or goods, or would you privatize the roads and sidewalks? Otherwise I'm having a hard time imagining how goods would be delivered to stores, how raw materials would be delivered to factories, how bands would get to their paid gigs, and how I would get to work in the morning.
considering the later contributed to paying for the creation of the public resource and their use is not exclusive nor impedes others from using the same I see no issue.
It's tiring reading commentators say things like this. Saying a professional journalist lacks "journalistic integrity" is bold. Why don't you step up and make this argument directly to the author, rather than being snide and posting it on a forum he will never read?
2. I have confronted journalists whose practices I disagree with when I meet them in real life, and in general their excuses are not impressive. Most recently I challenged Ivan Semeniuk, science journalist for the Globe and Mail, when he visited Perimeter Institute for "The Future of Science Communication", a panel discussion we were both on. (Semeniuk was endorsing a different common journalistic practice I disagree with, not the same as exhibited by Amir Efrati, but I can't share because it was a private conversation.)
3. Challenging Efrati would be like confronting every panhandler who tells a false sob story. Newspapers are full of this sort of writing, and you could spend your life objecting to it.
Or, the author is suggesting that public resources should be used for public, not private benefit?