I find the tone in your post a bit bizarre. It'd be like me saying:

Every time I read about Gerber I wonder who the target market is. Then I remember that I'm a childless adult with a pantry full of food and lots of takeout menus on hand. And then I realize that Gerber is made by and for old, married, child-bearing couples with who live in the Midwest.

Why does the target market need to be young, single and childless? It would work for couples without kids, or parents with kids who've left home or are being left with a sitter. Or families where the children can go 30 minutes without needing food or entertainment. Or older people who aren't keen to drive in a city or deal with parking.

Obviously those with young children specifically are in a different position and that's likely to be hard to address. You'll have a particular pram/stroller you use and specific snacks. You're more likely to be tied to your car if you don't want to be packing and unpacking each time. I get it - I have a car with a car seat for a 2yo. But there are also loads of times I'd use an Uber service alone or with my partner or even with a child if it were prevalent in my city.

I'm acutely aware of the fact that the main reason I own a car is because I'm married w/ children. When I was single I quite happily got around by bicycle and motorcycle...

But transporting young children is a specific use case, and it's a very common one where something like Uber isn't really an attractive or viable substitute for your own car given the bulky support paraphenelia required, often by law (car seats, strollers etc.)

Or just anywhere people take taxis, like when going to the airport, after a night of drinking, or on vacation without your car. If they can beat the normal cost of car ownership they could even take over commuting. Household will likely still need a car for kid transport and road trips, bit maybe not a second car. Anyone taking public transportation can easily augment it with uber for times when buses are less frequent.

And soon everyone else who doesn't have young kids, and then ultimately you: riding in the back of a far safer self-driving car.

You will be able to give your full attention to your children instead of having them distract you from the road. In the future it might seem downright irresponsible to drive your children yourself. Sure you'll drive for fun sometimes, but not with the kids in the back.

Despite your safety argument, couples with young children will be by far the last consumers to use self-driving cars.

Parents do plenty of horribly "unsafe" things with their kids, but the point is _they_ do them -- they aren't going to pass the responsibility for their children's lives on to a computer willingly. Heck, I've known people who refused to take their children on driverless trains, they sure won't put them into a driverless car.

Right, I noticed that this thread was missing the standard reply from a suburbanite parent on how X is only for young, wealthy, single people with comparatively little life experience who have no responsibilities beyond their own selves, and how X would never really work for people with real responsibilities because X doesn't provide the benefits of: having a medium/large house vs. a small apartment, suburbs vs. the city, biking and public transportation vs. an owned car, something "disruptive" vs. something tried-and-tested, slightly unconventional lifestyle vs. somewhat conventional lifestyle...

No, you didn't actually say anything like that. But your post is pretty heavy with dismissal, as opposed to just saying "I don't think that this would work for my situation because A, B, C...". I doubt that something like this can accommodate even close to most people's lifestyle and needs, but there is no need for this "pff, only those privileged young people would find this useful" crap.