Driverless cars and the ownerless future

[DonkeyApple]

J4CKO said:

I think this won’t end car ownership, but it may remove the need for a lot of households to have more than one car for general duties, my parents are retired and have two cars, one is rarely used, only when they go somewhere separate at the same time, which is rare.

So, guess what, maybe all this will mean you can dispense with a daily, rely on pay as you go type use and get something stupid for the weekends !

So, the doom laden visions of the future may be blessings.

I think that is very true.

As soon as apps appeared to enable hailing black cabs to your location I dropped the ownership of the general family car and just retained the classics for leisure driving only. I know a reasonable number of other people in Central London who also dumped their utility boxes the moment taxi apps appeared and just kept their special car.

That’s just a small sample of people in a city that has particularly excellent transport links and where you really don’t need a car to survive but it shows to me that there is certainly capacity and a willingness to dispose of the boggo utility transport as the alternatives become as easy, flexible and cheap.

[captain_cynic]

unsprung said:

Lest we focus too much on the merits and criticisms of autonomous ride sharing... The future is about a constellation of diverse solutions. And, yes, this includes the possibility to lease or own a vehicle outright -- but many people will find that this doesn't necessarily suit as it did before.

Some random examples:

car pooling and long distance ride sharing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlaBlaCar

on-demand car hire (cars are sprinkled about town; access them via your phone and go)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipcar

car subscription (eg: this Volvo all-inclusive offer of £430 monthly)
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technolog...

group lease of a car
http://fortune.com/2016/04/08/ford-group-leasing-a...

share your owned car with others
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/18/turo-car-sharing...




.

Turo, BlaBlaCar (incredibly stupid name) and ZipCar... Along with Uber and other so-called "disruptive" companies are losing money hand over fist. Uber to the tune of 4.5 billion USD a year.

None of these services are going to be around for the long term because they simply don't reflect usage in reality.

Same with this idea that an autonomous car is going to be in use for 70% of the time. It wont because people's communing habits wont change. There will be a high demand during peak hours, a moderate to low demand during the day and low to no demand at night. For it to be in use 70% of the time there needs to be a significant number of people moving about between 20:00 and 02:00 each night which clearly isn't the case now.

[mgv8]

captain_cynic said:

Turo, BlaBlaCar (incredibly stupid name) and ZipCar... Along with Uber and other so-called "disruptive" companies are losing money hand over fist. Uber to the tune of 4.5 billion USD a year.

None of these services are going to be around for the long term because they simply don't reflect usage in reality.

Same with this idea that an autonomous car is going to be in use for 70% of the time. It wont because people's communing habits wont change. There will be a high demand during peak hours, a moderate to low demand during the day and low to no demand at night. For it to be in use 70% of the time there needs to be a significant number of people moving about between 20:00 and 02:00 each night which clearly isn't the case now.

If you look at Amzon who lost money for years before making cash Uber is still bulding market. 3.5milion just in London is good numbers. Working from home is way more normal than before, so commuing habits are changing. Also look at the move to bikes in London. Your view is from how things are now, but thing are a changing.

[RacerMike]

mgv8 said:

If you look at Amzon who lost money for years before making cash Uber is still bulding market. 3.5milion just in London is good numbers. Working from home is way more normal than before, so commuing habits are changing. Also look at the move to bikes in London. Your view is from how things are now, but thing are a changing.

As I said a few posts back, working from home works in some specific industries, but for many it doesn't, and that isn't going to change because it's simply not possible to do a lot of jobs from home! The majority of all employees (apart from the wonderful collaborative co-op vegan peace charities who offer new and inspiring solutions to an ever changing tech world) will continue to need to work together face to face, do actual physical things in a place of work for the majority of the time and commute to and from a place of work.....and believe it or not, the majority of the worlds population don't live in a city like London, New York or LA....

[captain_cynic]

mgv8 said:

If you look at Amzon who lost money for years before making cash Uber is still bulding market. 3.5milion just in London is good numbers. Working from home is way more normal than before, so commuing habits are changing. Also look at the move to bikes in London. Your view is from how things are now, but thing are a changing.

Ahh, the classic Amazon trope.

If you looked at Amazon instead of trying that old argument out, you'd have realised they had a plan to make money from the start by establishing a new market, not trying to muscle in on an existing one using lower prices and ignoring the laws others have to abide by. Years in and billions down, Uber has no plan to reach profitablity. Also by 7 years Amazon was making a profit, Uber is now 9 and their losses increasing, not decreasing as Amazon's had been for years before 2001.

Basically, there's nothing in common between the two.

Amazon didn't try and muscle out Walmart, they started in a space Walmart wasn't interested in competing in. Amazon became profitable, not through undercutting competition (which is just a race to the bottom, see: air travel) but by offering services that didn't exist.

Also if you look at Amazon today... most of their profit comes from their cloud computing AWS services (EC2, S3 and the like). In fact Amazon's International division is losing money.

Its always a good idea to check other peoples arguments before using them yourself.

Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 24th April 11:07

Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 24th April 11:17

[otolith]

I can see that autonomy will potentially make taxis cheaper to use and make living car-free a less unattractive proposition. I don't see that a car being autonomous will have any real negative impact on the desire of people to own it. For the vast majority of people, I think the enjoyment of the act of driving is irrelevant to their desire for car possession - not round here, of course, but this place is not representative. I think for most people possession is driven more by convenience, territoriality, comfort, conspicuous consumption and covetousness.

I think the impact of "everyone can afford to use taxis" will be significantly lessened by the impact of "everyone can afford a chauffeur".

[DonkeyApple]

captain_cynic said:

Ahh, the classic Amazon trope.

If you looked at Amazon instead of trying that old argument out, you'd have realised they had a plan to make money from the start by establishing a new market, not trying to muscle in on an existing one using lower prices and ignoring the laws others have to abide by. Years in and billions down, Uber has no plan to reach profitablity. Also by 7 years Amazon was making a profit, Uber is now 9 and their losses increasing, not decreasing as Amazon's had been for years before 2001.

Basically, there's nothing in common between the two.

Amazon didn't try and muscle out Walmart, they started in a space Walmart wasn't interested in competing in. Amazon became profitable, not through undercutting competition (which is just a race to the bottom, see: air travel) but by offering services that didn't exist.

Also if you look at Amazon today... most of their profit comes from their cloud computing AWS services (EC2, S3 and the like). In fact Amazon's International division is losing money.

Its always a good idea to check other peoples arguments before using them yourself.

Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 24th April 11:07

Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 24th April 11:17

Amazon was an online bookshop that specifically aimed at an existing market, the physical bookshop, and undercut it. The turning of it into a general store was a result of the need to make a profit. And ‘profit’ is an interesting aspect in its own right as Amazon suspiciously manages to make losses in zones of high taxation and profits in xonesbof zero taxation . That said, Uber is a horrible company, a child of Web 2.0 and the new wave of the Silicon Valley zero ethics business model.

[unsprung]

captain_cynic said:

None of these services are going to be around for the long term because they simply don't reflect usage in reality.

[glances at other guy's user name; yep, it checks out]

There's a lot of froth in the water right now, isn't there. Eventually, however, there will be new and sustainable value created. There's too great a convergence of emergent technologies and network effects.

Part of this will indeed involve a number of failed ventures which you imply. It's just early days.

As others have explained in this thread, the issues are many: not just commercial and technological, but cultural and ethical as well. The heedless and arrogant Uber got in London just what it deserved (the notification to withdraw its trading licence).

[DonkeyApple]

unsprung said:

[glances at other guy's user name; yep, it checks out]

There's a lot of froth in the water right now, isn't there. Eventually, however, there will be new and sustainable value created. There's too great a convergence of emergent technologies and network effects.

Part of this will indeed involve a number of failed ventures which you imply. It's just early days.

As others have explained in this thread, the issues are many: not just commercial and technological, but cultural and ethical as well. The heedless and arrogant Uber got in London just what it deserved (the notification to withdraw its trading licence).

From the title we have two key subjects, driverless cars and ownerless cars. I see them as two wholly separate areas. Frankly we are already at ‘ownerless cars’. Most drivers don’t own the cars that are outside their home. They simply pay some form of monthly fee to have sole user control over it. And I think it’s fair to argue that as the current macro economic trend in the West continues then this will further split out towards more and more ‘sharing’ models of different types as people become more and more price sensitive. And I think you’ve already outlined the existing models that are being tested in the market place.

The other issue of driverless cars I just don’t honestly think we need to trouble ourselves over as cars without steering wheels that we summon at will are a long way away as we discussed. And as someone else posted very accurately a bit earlier, they will all stink of piss to varying degrees that will be determined by price per mile.

But change is happening and it will continue to be driven by the innovation of new tech and the amount of money available to have a punt at new business models utilising this tech combined with the very strong driver of the consumer becoming more and more reliant on monthly and PAYG contracts and stripping those down as much as possible while still trying to maintain the external image of not being broke.

[unsprung]

Zetec-S said:

Any business model would have to be adapted to the each country and it's culture.

You're right.

Being observant and acquiring a sense of emotional intelligence about the habits and perceptions of large, discrete populations is important. Adapting products and policies is important. Being a f***ing decent person is important.

It's also important to note how Uber, with its adolescent brogrammer mien, did little of this when first operating in London (and authorities there were right to take action).

There is, however, one corollary to the need for localisation.

And, sadly, and especially if you travelled prior to the aughts, it's that large swaths of culture are converging. They've been doing so for the last couple of centuries. And, of course, ye olde internet and digitisation now accelerate this convergence beyond anything that we can imagine.

The silver lining, if there is one, is that, although convergence may at times appear to be a one-way street, it is actually more of a pooling. I am aware that it doesn't always seem that way. And just for fun I include the following quote from a man who, I believe, was a very good observer of cultures.

"As always, the British especially shudder at the latest American vulgarity, and then they embrace it with enthusiasm two years later."

- Alistair Cooke

Edited by unsprung on Tuesday 24th April 13:37

[99dndd]

DonkeyApple said:

The other issue of driverless cars I just don’t honestly think we need to trouble ourselves over as cars without steering wheels that we summon at will are a long way away as we discussed. And as someone else posted very accurately a bit earlier, they will all stink of piss to varying degrees that will be determined by price per mile.

I have to agree that driverless cars on the road are a long way off. We haven't reached the point of driverless trains yet and that would be a lot easier to implement.

[GetCarter]

99dndd said:

I have to agree that driverless cars on the road are a long way off. We haven't reached the point of driverless trains yet and that would be a lot easier to implement.

Indeed. But I wouldn't be training as a train driver or airline pilot, as there will be a very short career!

I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years.

[Zetec-S]

GetCarter said:

99dndd said:

I have to agree that driverless cars on the road are a long way off. We haven't reached the point of driverless trains yet and that would be a lot easier to implement.

Indeed. But I wouldn't be training as a train driver or airline pilot, as there will be a very short career!

Fair enough, a train driver. But do you really think we'll be at a point any time soon where airline pilots are ditched? Forget the tech side of things, how many people are going to want to go up in the air with just a computer flying them and no fall back system.

If something goes wrong on an automated train in theory all you'd need is for someone to hit the emergency stop, but not so easy to do at 30,000 feet

[GetCarter]

Zetec-S said:

Fair enough, a train driver. But do you really think we'll be at a point any time soon where airline pilots are ditched? Forget the tech side of things, how many people are going to want to go up in the air with just a computer flying them and no fall back system.

If something goes wrong on an automated train in theory all you'd need is for someone to hit the emergency stop, but not so easy to do at 30,000 feet

As I added:

I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years. He hardly does anything now. 99% auto.

Even my £1500 drone if it encounters a problem returns to home avoiding all obstacles on it's way.

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 24th April 13:45

[DonkeyApple]

GetCarter said:

99dndd said:

I have to agree that driverless cars on the road are a long way off. We haven't reached the point of driverless trains yet and that would be a lot easier to implement.

Indeed. But I wouldn't be training as a train driver or airline pilot, as there will be a very short career!

I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years.

Train driver is already a very short career, with a massive pension at the end.

[Zetec-S]

GetCarter said:

As I added:

I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years. He hardly does anything now. 99% auto.

Even my £1500 drone if it encounters a problem returns to home avoiding all obstacles on it's way.

A £1500 drone is very different to an Airbus 380

But anyhows, I'm not disputing the tech, I'm sure we're pretty much there already. But the psychology will make it almost impossible to roll out commercially for years. Look at the response after the SW airlines incident last week, pilot being labelled a hero. People want that human to fall back on.

[GetCarter]

Zetec-S said:

GetCarter said:

As I added:

I know a chap who just started flying 737's and he reckons 10 years. He hardly does anything now. 99% auto.

Even my £1500 drone if it encounters a problem returns to home avoiding all obstacles on it's way.

A £1500 drone is very different to an Airbus 380

But anyhows, I'm not disputing the tech, I'm sure we're pretty much there already. But the psychology will make it almost impossible to roll out commercially for years. Look at the response after the SW airlines incident last week, pilot being labelled a hero. People want that human to fall back on.

I quote from the report by UBS (who say we may see them by 2025)

"Pilotless planes could save airlines £27 billion and slash fares for passengers, who could see prices drop by over 10 per cent."

Come back in 2028 and tell me you were right

ETA (I might not be here mind!)

Edited by GetCarter on Tuesday 24th April 14:07

[rxe]

Aeroplane passengers want a human to fall back on for good reason. Have a read of this as an example:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050625095108/http://...

Manufacturers have considered putting such flight models in autopilots, but it is rather hard. Autopilots have a rather bad habit of “giving up” when presented with inconsistent or erroneous data. Humans make mistakes and are expensive, but they’re still way better than computers in aeroplanes. Cars are an order of magnitude harder than aeroplanes.

[GetCarter]

rxe said:

Cars are an order of magnitude harder than aeroplanes.

Yet they will be on the road in 3 years. (So they say)

[Zetec-S]

http://www.cityam.com/269833/your-robot-speaking-w...

article said:

With pilotless planes are currently being trialed, analysis by the Swiss bank suggested they could be used commonly for air taxis and cargo flights by the 2020s, before spreading into business jets and helicopters by the 2030s.

By the 2040s, pilotless technology will be regularly used to reduce cockpit workload on commercial passenger jets, suggested the researchers.

A bit vague language in that report. Plus only 17% of people surveyed would travel on a pilotless aircraft. Most people still want a qualified pilot in the cockpit.

On top of that, I think the biggest obstacle is that people will judge a computer a lot more harshly than they'll judge a human pilot. So the first serious incident involving a pilotless aircraft will likely result in a massive loss in faith of the tech.