Driverless cars and the ownerless future
Discussion
Muncher said:
If you could occupy one of those for say 75% of the time the running costs per hour are approximately 66p, incredibly cheap.
Do you mean if you could have a driverless car actually transporting somebody for 75% of the time? That seems very optimistic to me. For a start there can't be much demand between 10pm and 6am, and then a lot of the demand during the day is concentrated into rush hours at each end of the day where most people who are on the move tend to be heading into towns/cities, with a fair bit less going the other way. Happy to be proved wrong if there has been any actual modelling done as to what the utilisation rate of a driverless car would be, but I'd be surprised if it was as much as 20%. Of course, that's still a much higher utilisation rate than the cars we have now. I can't see me giving up a car of my own anytime soon though - for a start it would be a right bind having to take the child seat and assorted kiddy paraphernalia to and from the car at each end. Also, being a fell runner I tend to use my car to drive out to fairly remote spots, go running for a few hours then return pretty knackered, and possibly cold and wet. Would I want to rely on a driverless car having shown up on time to get me back home? No ta! Obviously that's not a typical case but there will be lots of reasons why people just like having their own car, so I don't believe we'll see the end of mass car ownership in my lifetime.
Roger Irrelevant said:
Also, being a fell runner I tend to use my car to drive out to fairly remote spots, go running for a few hours then return pretty knackered, and possibly cold and wet. Would I want to rely on a driverless car having shown up on time to get me back home? No ta! Obviously that's not a typical case but there will be lots of reasons why people just like having their own car, so I don't believe we'll see the end of mass car ownership in my lifetime.
To be fair, you owning a driverless car would make alot of sense...get back after a run...car already warmed up, settle down in the car to relax whilst it drives you home.I think it's more the fact that you will be consuming media, goods and services whilst the car is taking you wherever. All advertising revenue and pushed suggestions for products like the restaurants that you are driving past. That's the business model IMO, the actual operation of the cars will be second fiddle to whatever google/apple/amazon can milk out of you.
TooMany2cvs said:
Yes, of course. Then there's the rent-by-the-hour car clubs in cities, including the rather massive AutoLib scheme in Paris and other French cities (basically four-wheeled Borisbikes).
But why isn't it the majority? Why it still a relatively little used scheme (worldwide at least) that only exists in cities. This still, to me at least, doesn't suggest that 80% of people will see this as the future of their car use.TooMany2cvs said:
Oooh, lemme guess... Snobbery?
Exactly. But why does snobbery exist? Because people like to show off. How do you show off when you can't have your Mercedes parked on your driveway for everyone to see. If you ordered an UberBlack (I had to look up what it was called by the way which shows that the brand recognition as a high end product isn't that wide reaching), would anyone actually notice other than you? I'd say 90% of the types of people who buy a car purely on the brand name do so to be able to show it to people.TooMany2cvs said:
Sort-of a two-wheeled Borisbike scheme, y'mean?
True. But I still own a bike, and would still own a bike if I lived in London. It's nice to have the occasional convenience of a Boris Bike, but it's more useful for tourists and part time visitors rather than full time residents. Ever tried to find a place to get one or drop one off when it's peak time?2 things occur to me about ownerless driverless cars:
Firstly some people actually like cars and driving, what about them because presumably the idea is to totally eradicate that model.
Secondly people are disgusting pigs and will leave the car like a tip. Check out any tube or bus or plane at the end of a trip, it's a tip! And as a chauffeur I can confirm that wealth and expensive cars have no bearing on this, all sorts of people do all sorts of disgusting stuff.
What about the bloke who's just done a tip run in the car/pod/Jonny cab but accidentally spilt his old container of creosote on the seat en route. Or the bloke who got picked up after a run on the Dales, sweaty, muddy, bit of cow s
t on the shoes! 'No worries, not my car'!
Plus of course all the other problems like insurance issues, putting loads of people (including me!) out of work, infrastructure, all sorts. I just don't really see it
Firstly some people actually like cars and driving, what about them because presumably the idea is to totally eradicate that model.
Secondly people are disgusting pigs and will leave the car like a tip. Check out any tube or bus or plane at the end of a trip, it's a tip! And as a chauffeur I can confirm that wealth and expensive cars have no bearing on this, all sorts of people do all sorts of disgusting stuff.
What about the bloke who's just done a tip run in the car/pod/Jonny cab but accidentally spilt his old container of creosote on the seat en route. Or the bloke who got picked up after a run on the Dales, sweaty, muddy, bit of cow s
t on the shoes! 'No worries, not my car'!Plus of course all the other problems like insurance issues, putting loads of people (including me!) out of work, infrastructure, all sorts. I just don't really see it
Edited by stinkyspanner on Monday 23 April 16:15
loafer123 said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Also, being a fell runner I tend to use my car to drive out to fairly remote spots, go running for a few hours then return pretty knackered, and possibly cold and wet. Would I want to rely on a driverless car having shown up on time to get me back home? No ta! Obviously that's not a typical case but there will be lots of reasons why people just like having their own car, so I don't believe we'll see the end of mass car ownership in my lifetime.
To be fair, you owning a driverless car would make alot of sense...get back after a run...car already warmed up, settle down in the car to relax whilst it drives you home.RacerMike said:
The whole "ownerless" thing is the brain fart of Californian hipster journalist who lives in the centre of a somewhat bohemian city (that we've never heard of) where he rides his bicycle to the cafe's and Whole Foods but not so fast that his beard oil dries out. For him, owning a motor vehicle is a burden for when he has to go and visit his middle class, mainstream family and lecture them on the benefits of non-holistic yogurt baths or whatever.This person doesn't live in reality.
RacerMike said:
1) Why does this market not already exist? Can someone not just use taxi's and public transport already if they want? For me commuting by taxi at the moment, would actually be cheaper than owning my own car, fuelling it and driving it to and from work every day. And yet the desire to have my own car far outweighs the potential saving.
People are trying, Uber, Zipcar... the problem is no-one is making any money out of it. They think that driverless cars (which are still a long way off) are the silver bullet to their failing business models but fail to grasp that their business models are failing because they're bad business models that count on a problem that doesn't exist, everyone changing their daily habits, breaking the law or any combination of the three.The fact is, the rental car business model has remained unchainged for years and for those who live in cities with good public transport, such as London not owning a car and just hiring one when needed has been a workable model for years, no changes or "disruptive technologies" are needed there. However the Londons of the world are rarities.
For those of us who live in places where it is extremely useful to drive, car ownership hasn't and wont change.
RacerMike said:
2) What would make a user choose a Mercedes taxi...sorry, driverless car, over a Renault?
Most wouldn't. The problem that the "ownerless" hipsters don't get is that normal people go to work 9-5, this means most people will require transport at the same time. So either there will need to be enough pool cars for everyone who works and goes to school, which wont be profitable or we'll all end up owning driverless cars. So the future wont be ownerless, for those who want to forgo the "burden" of car ownership there are already options like public transport and driverless technologies wont change this.At which point, you're asking if I should buy a driverless Merc or a driverless Renault which is really asking if I want a Merc or a Renault.
RacerMike said:
3) Why have other technology products not already followed this model? Why do we not only rent every day things when we need them, in particular high value items like push bikes?
Because the business model isn't workable. The Barclays/Boris/Santender bikes of London are an oddity because the city keeps underwriting them. Similar things have been tried elsewhere in Australia and the US (that I know of) and have failed miserably because they lose money. London obviously thinks that the tourism benefit is worth the £. As I've said, many people who live in places like London, New York and San Francisco, already live sans car, hiring one when needed. However this doesn't work for most places in the world. I cant think of a single town in Australia where it would be preferable or in many cases, workable to not have a car and hire one when needed as the public transport systems are terrible and the price of car hire is extortionate.
Also, I'm pretty convinced at this point in time, "driverless" cars are the flying care meme of this generation. I'm going to be 60 and the 18 yr olds of today will be saying "when am I going to get my driverless car".
TL;DR
Driverless cars are not a magic solution, let alone to a problem that doesn't exist.
People are trying the "ownerless" business model and no-one's making money from it.
Edited by captain_cynic on Monday 23 April 16:31
Edited by captain_cynic on Monday 23 April 16:33
foxbody-87 said:
A driverless ‘public pool car’ would work well in a country where people could be relied on to keep it clean. It would be virtually unusable after a week in the UK. I’ll stick to my own car for now!
Would probably end up sticking to a driverless one fairly often as well 
So many people are utter animals and dont have the "Leave as you found it" mentality, quite bad in this country as well, even defibrillators cant be left confidently, something that could save any one of us, our parents, kids, brothers sisters, nope, get the f
ker down and smash it up,http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Vandals-throw-de...
Public toilets become venues for liaisons, and some folk are experimental artists using whatever is to hand, some obviously have the anatomy of a hippo with a kind of windscreen wiper tail or something.
At the gym the other week and some peasant had put their chewing gum under a weight bench, there was a bin maybe seven feet away, but no, under the bench it goes.
Not sure how many are like this, some is mental illness but there must be a fair amount, at least stuff is growing now to cover all the Costa coffee cups around, my son has just been to Japan, didnt see any litter whilst he was there.
captain_cynic said:
RacerMike said:
The whole "ownerless" thing is the brain fart of Californian hipster journalist who lives in the centre of a somewhat bohemian city (that we've never heard of) where he rides his bicycle to the cafe's and Whole Foods but not so fast that his beard oil dries out. For him, owning a motor vehicle is a burden for when he has to go and visit his middle class, mainstream family and lecture them on the benefits of non-holistic yogurt baths or whatever.This person doesn't live in reality.
RacerMike said:
1) Why does this market not already exist? Can someone not just use taxi's and public transport already if they want? For me commuting by taxi at the moment, would actually be cheaper than owning my own car, fuelling it and driving it to and from work every day. And yet the desire to have my own car far outweighs the potential saving.
People are trying, Uber, Zipcar... the problem is no-one is making any money out of it. They think that driverless cars (which are still a long way off) are the silver bullet to their failing business models but fail to grasp that their business models are failing because they're bad business models that count on a problem that doesn't exist, everyone changing their daily habits, breaking the law or any combination of the three.The fact is, the rental car business model has remained unchainged for years and for those who live in cities with good public transport, such as London not owning a car and just hiring one when needed has been a workable model for years, no changes or "disruptive technologies" are needed there. However the Londons of the world are rarities.
For those of us who live in places where it is extremely useful to drive, car ownership hasn't and wont change.
RacerMike said:
2) What would make a user choose a Mercedes taxi...sorry, driverless car, over a Renault?
Most wouldn't. The problem that the "ownerless" hipsters don't get is that normal people go to work 9-5, this means most people will require transport at the same time. So either there will need to be enough pool cars for everyone who works and goes to school, which wont be profitable or we'll all end up owning driverless cars. So the future wont be ownerless, for those who want to forgo the "burden" of car ownership there are already options like public transport and driverless technologies wont change this.At which point, you're asking if I should buy a driverless Merc or a driverless Renault which is really asking if I want a Merc or a Renault.
RacerMike said:
3) Why have other technology products not already followed this model? Why do we not only rent every day things when we need them, in particular high value items like push bikes?
Because the business model isn't workable. The Barclays/Boris/Santender bikes of London are an oddity because the city keeps underwriting them. Similar things have been tried elsewhere in Australia and the US (that I know of) and have failed miserably because they lose money. London obviously thinks that the tourism benefit is worth the £. As I've said, many people who live in places like London, New York and San Francisco, already live sans car, hiring one when needed. However this doesn't work for most places in the world. I cant think of a single town in Australia where it would be preferable or in many cases, workable to not have a car and hire one when needed as the public transport systems are terrible and the price of car hire is extortionate.
Also, I'm pretty convinced at this point in time, "driverless" cars are the flying care meme of this generation. I'm going to be 60 and the 18 yr olds of today will be saying "when am I going to get my driverless car".
TL;DR
Driverless cars are not a magic solution, let alone to a problem that doesn't exist.
People are trying the "ownerless" business model and no-one's making money from it.
The thing that confuses me is that so many big companies seem to be 'on board' with the idea, and yet I can't understand how it works on any level. Like you've put, it seems to be answering a question that just doesn't exist asked by people that don't really know how car ownership works for the majority. It's another emperors new clothes which seems to be gaining more traction because enough people are talking about it.....not because anyone has actually 'done the math' so to speak.
RacerMike said:
I think you just vocalised by thoughts better than I can myself!
The thing that confuses me is that so many big companies seem to be 'on board' with the idea, and yet I can't understand how it works on any level. Like you've put, it seems to be answering a question that just doesn't exist asked by people that don't really know how car ownership works for the majority. It's another emperors new clothes which seems to be gaining more traction because enough people are talking about it.....not because anyone has actually 'done the math' so to speak.
Ownerless is the pipe dream of the rental firms like Uber. Followed by the car companies that can then sell big to a single customer.The thing that confuses me is that so many big companies seem to be 'on board' with the idea, and yet I can't understand how it works on any level. Like you've put, it seems to be answering a question that just doesn't exist asked by people that don't really know how car ownership works for the majority. It's another emperors new clothes which seems to be gaining more traction because enough people are talking about it.....not because anyone has actually 'done the math' so to speak.
As I mentioned, most people thing of ownerless as renting, and are already on board with that part... what they don't want is a random car coming 15 minutes late, and ratty inside.
Change the minds of people and they'll win though, do that through cunning and price and they stand every chance of succeeding.
RacerMike said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Yes, of course. Then there's the rent-by-the-hour car clubs in cities, including the rather massive AutoLib scheme in Paris and other French cities (basically four-wheeled Borisbikes).
But why isn't it the majority? Why it still a relatively little used scheme (worldwide at least) that only exists in cities. This still, to me at least, doesn't suggest that 80% of people will see this as the future of their car use.I can’t see taxis suddenly becoming cheaper regardless of paying a drivers wage or not , no forms of public transport will ever get cheaper, it won’t matter how much they save on drivers or guards wages they will still want that maximum profit for the smallest outlay, they will just state that the cost of this new technology justifies the pricing,
Have train fares got cheaper since they have removed staffing levels, did busses get cheaper without conductors nope not a chance in hell
If you want cheap transport it’s either shanks pony or a push bike
Have train fares got cheaper since they have removed staffing levels, did busses get cheaper without conductors nope not a chance in hell
If you want cheap transport it’s either shanks pony or a push bike
Pretty simple really. Over 20 years, Most folk will go 'download, no problem, no issue, go driverless'.
Others will go retro, and decide we'll still need a wheel. Mostly as a hobby. But we will be in the minority, and eventually we'll be an old folk thing, then a museum thing, just racing ICE continues, then the old fashioned 'electric engines'. Do you remember them?
..and we'll all be dead.
Enjoy them while you can folks. We are just about out of time.
Others will go retro, and decide we'll still need a wheel. Mostly as a hobby. But we will be in the minority, and eventually we'll be an old folk thing, then a museum thing, just racing ICE continues, then the old fashioned 'electric engines'. Do you remember them?
..and we'll all be dead.
Enjoy them while you can folks. We are just about out of time.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 23 April 17:29
Muncher said:
The reason everyone doesn't choose to travel in a taxi at the moment is the cost and unpredictability that it will be there when you need it. People also don't want to share their car with a stranger for the whole journey.
A fully autonomous electric taxi would have running costs that are a tiny fraction of today's typical taxis, driver costs would be gone, fuel costs would be gone, it could run 24 hours a day and you could have an incredibly high utilisation rate.
You could also use it to collect children on the school run without having to accompany them which would free up so much time.
Totally agree.A fully autonomous electric taxi would have running costs that are a tiny fraction of today's typical taxis, driver costs would be gone, fuel costs would be gone, it could run 24 hours a day and you could have an incredibly high utilisation rate.
You could also use it to collect children on the school run without having to accompany them which would free up so much time.
We have a second car for my wife to do the few miles to work, then to ferry the teenage kids about.
My mother only drives about 100 miles a month just going to the shops and back.
A driverless Uber style service would absolutely be better in both those cases.
It would also solve the problems of the right car for the right solution. Drive to B&Q in a small efficient car, come back with in a van loaded up with an entire kitchen.
Taxis are ruinous where I'm at. I got charged £10 to go 2.6 miles the other day. Presumably the majority of the cost is to finance the carcass behind the wheel.
If I lived in a city I probably wouldn't bother driving, but if I did I'd already be a member of a car club. A driverless car rolling up in 5-10 minutes sounds like a great idea to me.
It would never work in the country.
If I lived in a city I probably wouldn't bother driving, but if I did I'd already be a member of a car club. A driverless car rolling up in 5-10 minutes sounds like a great idea to me.
It would never work in the country.
The driverless part is irrelevant. That will only mean taxi drivers lose their jobs.
This whole car rental dream/prediction has been going on for decades. Well before electric or driverless. The city go or whizz or whatever they are now called all forecast the end of car ownership by now. It didn’t happen.
People will want their own car even if it drives itself. For the exact same reasons they want their own car now. That’s not going to change.
Some people may well use a driverless service but I can only see it being in place of the current taxi system, maybe with an uplift through novelty at first.
As for those thinking they are going to pack their kids off in driverless taxi to school? Never going to happen. Can you imagine the fuss outside schools with them all pulling up and kids jumping out unsupervised? Firstly the teachers will want them banned and will suggest they come in a driverless bus. Kids getting in the wrong car a home time.
Also I can’t see any insurance company underwriting Uber to drive kids to school with no adult in the car. What happens in a crash? The six year old has to deal with the crash, won’t take long for something to go wrong and everyone is outraged.
The only way it will happen is if the government tax car ownership off the road to push this system. But then who would pay for everything.
This whole car rental dream/prediction has been going on for decades. Well before electric or driverless. The city go or whizz or whatever they are now called all forecast the end of car ownership by now. It didn’t happen.
People will want their own car even if it drives itself. For the exact same reasons they want their own car now. That’s not going to change.
Some people may well use a driverless service but I can only see it being in place of the current taxi system, maybe with an uplift through novelty at first.
As for those thinking they are going to pack their kids off in driverless taxi to school? Never going to happen. Can you imagine the fuss outside schools with them all pulling up and kids jumping out unsupervised? Firstly the teachers will want them banned and will suggest they come in a driverless bus. Kids getting in the wrong car a home time.
Also I can’t see any insurance company underwriting Uber to drive kids to school with no adult in the car. What happens in a crash? The six year old has to deal with the crash, won’t take long for something to go wrong and everyone is outraged.
The only way it will happen is if the government tax car ownership off the road to push this system. But then who would pay for everything.
Flumpo said:
The driverless part is irrelevant. That will only mean taxi drivers lose their jobs.
This whole car rental dream/prediction has been going on for decades. Well before electric or driverless. The city go or whizz or whatever they are now called all forecast the end of car ownership by now. It didn’t happen.
People will want their own car even if it drives itself. For the exact same reasons they want their own car now. That’s not going to change.
Some people may well use a driverless service but I can only see it being in place of the current taxi system, maybe with an uplift through novelty at first.
As for those thinking they are going to pack their kids off in driverless taxi to school? Never going to happen. Can you imagine the fuss outside schools with them all pulling up and kids jumping out unsupervised? Firstly the teachers will want them banned and will suggest they come in a driverless bus. Kids getting in the wrong car a home time.
Also I can’t see any insurance company underwriting Uber to drive kids to school with no adult in the car. What happens in a crash? The six year old has to deal with the crash, won’t take long for something to go wrong and everyone is outraged.
The only way it will happen is if the government tax car ownership off the road to push this system. But then who would pay for everything.
This whole car rental dream/prediction has been going on for decades. Well before electric or driverless. The city go or whizz or whatever they are now called all forecast the end of car ownership by now. It didn’t happen.
People will want their own car even if it drives itself. For the exact same reasons they want their own car now. That’s not going to change.
Some people may well use a driverless service but I can only see it being in place of the current taxi system, maybe with an uplift through novelty at first.
As for those thinking they are going to pack their kids off in driverless taxi to school? Never going to happen. Can you imagine the fuss outside schools with them all pulling up and kids jumping out unsupervised? Firstly the teachers will want them banned and will suggest they come in a driverless bus. Kids getting in the wrong car a home time.
Also I can’t see any insurance company underwriting Uber to drive kids to school with no adult in the car. What happens in a crash? The six year old has to deal with the crash, won’t take long for something to go wrong and everyone is outraged.
The only way it will happen is if the government tax car ownership off the road to push this system. But then who would pay for everything.
Flumpo said:
The driverless part is irrelevant. That will only mean taxi drivers lose their jobs.
This whole car rental dream/prediction has been going on for decades. Well before electric or driverless. The city go or whizz or whatever they are now called all forecast the end of car ownership by now. It didn’t happen.
People will want their own car even if it drives itself. For the exact same reasons they want their own car now. That’s not going to change.
Some people may well use a driverless service but I can only see it being in place of the current taxi system, maybe with an uplift through novelty at first.
As for those thinking they are going to pack their kids off in driverless taxi to school? Never going to happen. Can you imagine the fuss outside schools with them all pulling up and kids jumping out unsupervised? Firstly the teachers will want them banned and will suggest they come in a driverless bus. Kids getting in the wrong car a home time.
Also I can’t see any insurance company underwriting Uber to drive kids to school with no adult in the car. What happens in a crash? The six year old has to deal with the crash, won’t take long for something to go wrong and everyone is outraged.
The only way it will happen is if the government tax car ownership off the road to push this system. But then who would pay for everything.
Ok, so it’s not just me that thinks it then. Weirdly, so many people I talk to (who work in the automotive industry) seem to think the opposite. They make comments like ‘ah my kids just do everything via an app now, and no kids really like cars anymore’ which to me sounds like them projecting their views/lack of understanding onto something they’ve been told by Google, without any real thought. The concerning thing for me is that many of the major manufacturers are happy to plough money into it based on this fact!This whole car rental dream/prediction has been going on for decades. Well before electric or driverless. The city go or whizz or whatever they are now called all forecast the end of car ownership by now. It didn’t happen.
People will want their own car even if it drives itself. For the exact same reasons they want their own car now. That’s not going to change.
Some people may well use a driverless service but I can only see it being in place of the current taxi system, maybe with an uplift through novelty at first.
As for those thinking they are going to pack their kids off in driverless taxi to school? Never going to happen. Can you imagine the fuss outside schools with them all pulling up and kids jumping out unsupervised? Firstly the teachers will want them banned and will suggest they come in a driverless bus. Kids getting in the wrong car a home time.
Also I can’t see any insurance company underwriting Uber to drive kids to school with no adult in the car. What happens in a crash? The six year old has to deal with the crash, won’t take long for something to go wrong and everyone is outraged.
The only way it will happen is if the government tax car ownership off the road to push this system. But then who would pay for everything.
I actually did a talk at my old secondary school a few months back, and I got the opposite impression. A few of the kids actually said their favourite car was a Defender, and almost all of them were as enthusiastic as I was about cars.
Edited by RacerMike on Monday 23 April 19:33
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff