Weird that it still has forward-facing front seats.
I would have thought that a vehicle designed from the ground up as a self-driving taxi would have the front and rear seats facing each other, as in the back of a black cab (albeit without folding up) or in a train.
Doesn't look very accessible either. Have they actually done any market research on what people want from a dedicated taxi?
Club seating is pretty controversial. A large percentage of passengers absolutely will not accept a rear facing seat. Chrysler had Swivel 'n Go seats in the center row, that could optionally rotate to club seating as an option from 2008 through 2010, but dropped it due to low interest.
Also, accessibility requirements are about compliance, not market interest. Obviously, they don't matter to most users, and generally the extra usage from complying isn't cost effective. Theoretically, a company could do market research on users who would use accessibility features, but the results won't generally match legal requirements, so it's a much safer option to ignore accessibility needs and instead defer to accessibility regulations.
Clearly Zoox hasn't done the market research, or as is more often the case, did the research then ignored it, so any party of more than two is far more likely to use their competition.
Weird that it still has forward-facing front seats.
I would have thought that a vehicle designed from the ground up as a self-driving taxi would have the front and rear seats facing each other, as in the back of a black cab (albeit without folding up) or in a train.
Doesn't look very accessible either. Have they actually done any market research on what people want from a dedicated taxi?
Club seating is pretty controversial. A large percentage of passengers absolutely will not accept a rear facing seat. Chrysler had Swivel 'n Go seats in the center row, that could optionally rotate to club seating as an option from 2008 through 2010, but dropped it due to low interest.
Also, accessibility requirements are about compliance, not market interest. Obviously, they don't matter to most users, and generally the extra usage from complying isn't cost effective. Theoretically, a company could do market research on users who would use accessibility features, but the results won't generally match legal requirements, so it's a much safer option to ignore accessibility needs and instead defer to accessibility regulations.
Clearly Zoox hasn't done the market research, or as is more often the case, did the research then ignored it, so any party of more than two is far more likely to use their competition.
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/teslas-grand-plan-for-the...