On 01/04/2017 17:38, Graeme Wall wrote:

A recent New Scientist article was discussing how you programme ethical
considerations into self-driving cars!

Have they managed to figure out how to do that for runaway railway
trolleys approaching points yet?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 01/04/2017 19:43, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 01/04/2017 17:38, Graeme Wall wrote:

A recent New Scientist article was discussing how you programme ethical
considerations into self-driving cars!

Have they managed to figure out how to do that for runaway railway
trolleys approaching points yet?



That was quoted in the article.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news In message , at 12:15:44 on Sat, 1 Apr
2017, D A Stocks remarked:
I may well take another look at Uber when I make the reverse journey at
5.00 am on Monday morning: no more messing about with cash and and, if
my
initial experience is anything to go by, nicer cars, nicer drivers and
cheaper. What's not to like?

The alleged exploitation of their workers, the implications for
proportionate corporation tax receipts flowing to the UK, and the
possibility that having captured the market they can hike their fares.

the one thing about the taxi trade is that they can't monopolies the
market
through lower fares and then hike them when the competition pulls out

the barriers to entry for a taxi company are so low that if you take your
fares back up to the regulated maximum the competition will soon pile
back
in again.

to keep the competition out you have to keep your fares low forever

which is fine if your costs of operation really are low enough to support
that, but does mean that operating an unsustainably low fare to grab
market
share doesn't work.

History also shows that startups such as this are exceptional if they
succeed in the medium-long term, so what's your exit strategy if they
pull
out of the Brighton market?

catch the bus

He's a user not an investor

And they aren't selling a unique product

This is just a generic observation of the venture capital funded world,
not a prediction about any particular company trading today.

The BBC opines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29653830

Careful, Recliner will be along soon to tell you you are an idiot

Huh? Why would I do that? I invest in many venture capital funds, and am
well aware that many startups fail. I've also long thought that many IT
companies are over-valued.

because that's what you did when I questioned the possibility that Uber
might fail in an earlier discussion

you used the spurious argument that some large company (Amazon was it) had
invested and they wouldn't be investing in a company that might fail.

No, it has the backing of large VC funds, which Amazon is not. Don't you
know the difference?

And I didn't discuss whether might one day fail to repay their investment.
What I pointed out was that losing lots of money at this stage in its life
was all part of the business plan, which its investors fully understood and
supported.

If you want an example of an over-hyped company with an absurd valuation,
which also loses money hand over fist, look at Tesla.


On that basis you should hold the opinion that none of these billion dollar
companies can fail because it is 100% certain that all of them have the
backing of some large company or other

No. It just means you don't understand the difference between trading
companies and investment funds.

tim... wrote:


"D A Stocks" wrote in message
news
"Arthur Conan Doyle" wrote in message
news:uk9vdc1iusv3qbo78opsvoja1ik1sljco1@None...
"D A Stocks" wrote:

if my initial experience is
anything to go by, nicer cars, nicer drivers and cheaper. What's not to
like?

I used Uber Lux for a ride across London recently. Very nice. Wondered if
the
driver was doing a little moonlighting with his employer's vehicle, but
that's
his business.

I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my understanding
is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

FSVO

The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be "borrowing"
it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

The driver can't just turn up in a random borrowed vehicle. Uber must
approve, and knows exactly what car he drives. It presumably does some
checks on its ownership, suitability, whether it's licensed and insured for
private hire, etc.

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/lon...-requirements/

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\04\01 19:00, wrote:
In article , (D A Stocks)
wrote:

"Arthur Conan Doyle" wrote in message
news:uk9vdc1iusv3qbo78opsvoja1ik1sljco1@None...
"D A Stocks" wrote:

if my initial experience is
anything to go by, nicer cars, nicer drivers and cheaper. What's not to
like?

I used Uber Lux for a ride across London recently. Very nice. Wondered
if the driver was doing a little moonlighting with his employer's
vehicle, but that's his business.

I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my
understanding is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

In the UK? Hire car law would make that rather difficult, AIUI.

What? Most "minicabs" (outside of certain brands like Addison Lee) use
owner drivers, and about half of London taxis have owner drivers.

Most of the cars provided by my local mini cab firm are owned by the firm.
They're sometimes recently imported second-hand Japanese hybrid cars, with
Japanese-style controls, satnav, branding, etc. For example, once it was a
Toyota Estima, which would have been called a Previa if sold here.

In message , at 18:48:05 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017,
tim... remarked:
I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my
understanding is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

FSVO

The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be
"borrowing" it

See "and thus a lack of insurance".
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 20:19:18 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, Recliner
remarked:
The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be "borrowing"
it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

The driver can't just turn up in a random borrowed vehicle. Uber must
approve, and knows exactly what car he drives. It presumably does some
checks on its ownership, suitability, whether it's licensed and insured for
private hire, etc.

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/lon...-requirements/

The main complaint is that they don't (do much checking). And reportedly
the problem with insurance is they don't track cancellations and
renewals.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:23:28
on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, remarked:
I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my
understanding is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

FSVO

The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be
"borrowing" it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

In this country any hire car is subject to local authority licensing and
testing.

Although reportedly TfL is overwhelmed by the number of Uber cars being
brought into the system, and may not be checking as thoroughly as they
could.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 20:19:18 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, Recliner
remarked:
The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be "borrowing"
it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

The driver can't just turn up in a random borrowed vehicle. Uber must
approve, and knows exactly what car he drives. It presumably does some
checks on its ownership, suitability, whether it's licensed and insured for
private hire, etc.

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/drive/lon...-requirements/

The main complaint is that they don't (do much checking). And reportedly
the problem with insurance is they don't track cancellations and
renewals.

Do you have a link for that?

I'm not sure if this applies in the UK:

Uber requires all of their drivers to have car insurance, and provides
supplemental insurance coverage, but only while the app is on.

Here’s how it works: When the Uber app is off, a driver is covered by their
own personal car insurance. When the Uber app is turned on, a low level of
liability insurance becomes active. When a trip is accepted, a higher level
of coverage kicks in and remains active until the passenger exits the
vehicle. Previously Uber had only offered coverage when a passenger was in
the car, but the company updated their policy after a series of accidents
which resulted in various lawsuits.

From
https://www.answerfinancial.com/insurance-center/how-does-car-insurance-work-for-uber-drivers

Also see
http://www.gocompare.com/taxi-insurance/uber-and-other-ride-sharing-apps/#2YBrm8moZhlIIt7v.97

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
13:23:28 on Sat, 1 Apr 2017, remarked:
I'm not sure if the rules for Uber Lux are different, but my
understanding is that Uber drivers use their own vehicles.

FSVO

The point about Uber's model is that they don't own them

but that doesn't mean that the driver does either - he could be
"borrowing" it

(FTAOD - I'm not making some pedantic point about Lease-Hire)

In this country any hire car is subject to local authority licensing and
testing.

Although reportedly TfL is overwhelmed by the number of Uber cars
being brought into the system, and may not be checking as thoroughly
as they could.

That may be the legislation in London, different from that in the rest of
the country, not being fit for purpose.

--
Colin Rosenstiel