Comment by toast0
6 hours ago
> Waymo was a better experience in every single way. One of the Lyfts i was in drove on the shoulder for a while like it was a lane.
These sentances conflict. I recently took a taxi from JFK to Manhattan during rush hour, and I estimate if the driver didn't use all of the paved surface, it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)
It's ok if you prefer the Waymo experience, and if you find it a better experience overall, but if a human driver saves you time, the Waymo wasn't better in every single way.
I am assuming the Lyft driver used the shoulder effectively. My experience with Lyft+Uber has been hit or miss... Some drivers are like traditional taxi drivers: it's an exciting ride because the driver knows the capabilities of their vehicle and uses them and they navigate obstacles within inches; some drivers are the opposite, it's an exciting ride because it feels like Star Tours (is this your first time? well, it's mine too) and they're using your ride to find the capabilities of their vehicle. The first type of driver is likely to use the shoulder effectively, and the second not so much.
> it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)
Lived in New York for 10+ years and still go back regularly. This is unacceptable behaviour by a cabbie.
Given the amount of construction and thus police presence on that route right now, you’re lucky you didn’t get a 60-minute bonus when the cab got pulled over. (The pro move during rush hour and construction is (a) not to, but if you have to, (b) taking the AirTrain and LIRR.)
You want your cab driver to drive on the shoulder and break the law? What?
You may want to become aware of the existence of New York City. It's a pretty interesting place.
Yeah, that sounds like NYC nonsense. I assume it's still illegal to drive on the shoulder in New York.
12 replies →
> These sentances conflict. I recently took a taxi from JFK to Manhattan during rush hour, and I estimate if the driver didn't use all of the paved surface, it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)
My hot take is that people who "use all of the paved surface" because their whiny passenger is "in a rush" (which of course everyone stuck in traffic is) should permanently lose their license on the very first offense.
It is just gobsmackingly antisocial behavior that is 1) locally unsafe and 2) indicative of a deep moral rot.
Obviously exceptions can be made for true emergencies and what not, but "I need to save 10 minutes" is not one of them.
[flagged]
"People should break traffic laws" is a very strange position to take.
5 replies →
My hot take is that anyone who would take a taxi from JFK to Manhattan, along the most well-served transit corridor on the continent, is probably a psycho and we shouldn't ask for their input on transportation topics.
JFK to Manhattan is actually not that easy for a newcomer. JFK → Airtrain → LIRR → Subway is a very stupid design.
That said, yes GP is obviously a psycho.
There are many, many, many airports to which it is easier to travel via public transit from their associated city than it is from Manhattan to JFK. For example, all of these global-top-25 airports have single-train access:
London Heathrow (LHR)
Tokyo Haneda (HND)
Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS)
Paris-Charles de Gaulle (CDG)
Frankfurt (FRA)
Dubai (DXB)
Seoul Incheon (ICN)
Guangzhou (CAN)
Shanghai Pudong (PVG)
New Delhi (DEL)
Madrid Barajas (MAD)
Beijing Capital (PEK)
Chicago O'Hare (ORD)
Denver (DEN)
2 replies →
You do realize that public transportation doesn't provide luggage carts? That you can't take those out of the airport?
If you're traveling with a family or group, it really is often going to be much easier to take an XL Uber than deal with turnstiles and transfers and stairs and everything.
2 replies →
Oh my sweet summer child.
I've got news for you about how dysfunctional New York City transit planning has been and the status of transit to our three giant airports.
couldn't you have arrived 10 minutes later or was endangering life worth it?
I certainly could have arrived 10 minutes later, but I wouldn't say that arriving 10 minutes later would result in a better experience in every way. It might result in a hypothetically safer experience (in the instance, there were no collisions so safety was achieved) or a morally better experience (according to the HN consensus morals that deem me a psychopath for either taking a cab at all or because I did not intervene and let the cab driver drive as he saw fit). Up to you what criteria you judge the overall trip on, I'm just pointing out that if the trip time is longer, the trip is not better in every way; at least absent an unusual requirement such as if you wanted to see the sights on the way, a shorter but less scenic trip would be a negative; or if you had a timing constraint that you must not arrive before a certain time, a shorter trip might infringe that constraint and would be a negative --- no such constraint was mentioned.
I don't know that any life was endangered either. I would accept an argument that property was endangered, certainly the margin between vehicles was very close, but at speeds where a collision would not have been injurious.
Uh...driving in the shoulder is illegal.