Driverless cars and the ownerless future
Discussion
RacerMike said:
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!
Back when oil was $150/barrel everyone in the oil industry was adamant that it was going over $200 and that we were at peak oil. Sometimes you genuinely don’t see the wood for the trees and those on the inside of an industry are so convinced by all the internal hype that they just don’t see what the outside world sees. bloomen said:
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.
I live in the country and it certainly would work.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.
I would use one for the commute to a station, taking my daughter to her job in the next village over, picking up my mum to come for dinner.
The question is not whether driverless cars will work in the country...they will work very well due to the absence of public transport, but more whether those driverless cars will be owned by people like cars are now, or be shared on a subscription model.
I suspect a combination of the two.
loafer123 said:
I live in the country and it certainly would work.
I would use one for the commute to a station, taking my daughter to her job in the next village over, picking up my mum to come for dinner.
The question is not whether driverless cars will work in the country...they will work very well due to the absence of public transport, but more whether those driverless cars will be owned by people like cars are now, or be shared on a subscription model.
I suspect a combination of the two.
I think you’re right and it will be an economic divide. Private ownership will remain as plenty of people don’t want to always be in a vehicle that thousands of grubby punters have been in and out of that group some will be able to afford private ownership. Just like the current non driving model has minicabs at the bottom and chauffeurs at the top. But I don’t think we are anywhere remotely close to having a genuinely fully autonomous car. I would use one for the commute to a station, taking my daughter to her job in the next village over, picking up my mum to come for dinner.
The question is not whether driverless cars will work in the country...they will work very well due to the absence of public transport, but more whether those driverless cars will be owned by people like cars are now, or be shared on a subscription model.
I suspect a combination of the two.
Questions for those who doubt the rise of autonomous vehicles and on-demand ride sharing:
1. What will many people choose to do when total cost of ownership -- for point to point transportation -- becomes, say, half of that to own and maintain a personal car?
2. What are the macroeconomic effects of essentially putting a couple hundred quid into people's pockets each month whilst simultaneously allowing low-income families to travel more often and for longer distances than ever before?
3. What will citizens decide to do about the surplus of car parks and the waning number of vehicles parked overnight on city streets?
4. Why do you assume that all users will bear all costs of autonomous ride sharing? What other revenue streams can operators weave into the experience? And what happens when third-party brands get involved?
5. Up to 30,000 people die annually in road deaths in both the EU and US. Millions more are severely injured. What are the human and economic effects of a massive reduction in these figures, if, as anticipated, autonomous vehicles prove far safer?
loafer123 said:
I live in the country and it certainly would work.
I would use one for the commute to a station, taking my daughter to her job in the next village over, picking up my mum to come for dinner.
The question is not whether driverless cars will work in the country...they will work very well due to the absence of public transport, but more whether those driverless cars will be owned by people like cars are now, or be shared on a subscription model.
I suspect a combination of the two.
Where I'm at there are 2000 people or so. In the average day perhaps 300-500 want to go somewhere, perhaps more. Going somewhere, to shop or work, is a bare minimum of 30 minutes, more like 45. I would use one for the commute to a station, taking my daughter to her job in the next village over, picking up my mum to come for dinner.
The question is not whether driverless cars will work in the country...they will work very well due to the absence of public transport, but more whether those driverless cars will be owned by people like cars are now, or be shared on a subscription model.
I suspect a combination of the two.
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
unsprung said:
Questions for those who doubt the rise of autonomous vehicles and on-demand ride sharing:
1. What will many people choose to do when total cost of ownership -- for point to point transportation -- becomes, say, half of that to own and maintain a personal car?
2. What are the macroeconomic effects of essentially putting a couple hundred quid into people's pockets each month whilst simultaneously allowing low-income families to travel more often and for longer distances than ever before?
3. What will citizens decide to do about the surplus of car parks and the waning number of vehicles parked overnight on city streets?
4. Why do you assume that all users will bear all costs of autonomous ride sharing? What other revenue streams can operators weave into the experience? And what happens when third-party brands get involved?
5. Up to 30,000 people die annually in road deaths in both the EU and US. Millions more are severely injured. What are the human and economic effects of a massive reduction in these figures, if, as anticipated, autonomous vehicles prove far safer?
It depends what you doubt about autonomous vehicles though. You’re absolutely right with your points and I’ll chuck in the enormous ramifications of the thousands of new commercial enterprises that will be born from self driving cars existing. It will probably be as big an economic change as the advent of the smart phone. 1. What will many people choose to do when total cost of ownership -- for point to point transportation -- becomes, say, half of that to own and maintain a personal car?
2. What are the macroeconomic effects of essentially putting a couple hundred quid into people's pockets each month whilst simultaneously allowing low-income families to travel more often and for longer distances than ever before?
3. What will citizens decide to do about the surplus of car parks and the waning number of vehicles parked overnight on city streets?
4. Why do you assume that all users will bear all costs of autonomous ride sharing? What other revenue streams can operators weave into the experience? And what happens when third-party brands get involved?
5. Up to 30,000 people die annually in road deaths in both the EU and US. Millions more are severely injured. What are the human and economic effects of a massive reduction in these figures, if, as anticipated, autonomous vehicles prove far safer?
But I don’t happen to think we are remotely close to that kind of credible automation. The world of cars just pottering around on their own being highly efficient and us just summoning the type of vehicle that we need, when we need it or sending our own vehicle(s) out to earn an income like a pimp running some b
hes isn’t just around the corner. It’s 2018 and no autonomous vehicle has managed to cross Oxford Street yet and no one seems remotely close to solving such a simple task that thousands of mostly not hugely intelligent humans manage to do all day, every day. I can see pure autonomy being permitted in the places that it can genuinely work but not in a lot of other places for a long time and that means it will be highly selective and so restrictive.
bloomen said:
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
"By combining ride sharing with car sharing, MIT research has shown that it would be possible to take every passenger to his or her destination at the time they need to be there, with 80 percent fewer cars."That's a reduction of eighty percent in the number of cars on the road! Article here.
unsprung said:
Questions for those who doubt the rise of autonomous vehicles and on-demand ride sharing:
Firstly I don’t doubt the rise of autonomous vehicles. I’m just separating that from people choosing to own or hire them like a taxi.
1. What will many people choose to do when total cost of ownership -- for point to point transportation -- becomes, say, half of that to own and maintain a personal car?
Have you translated this from a foreign launguaue using google translate?
Anyway, this already happens, if you do a few journeys here and there a taxi or bus will always be cheaper. People choose to buy and use their own car. That won’t change unless the cost becomes prohibitive. Let’s be honest providing an electric autonomous vehicle is hardly going to be cheaper than mr Kahn providing the same service in his 10 year old Octavia and cash in his back pocket.
2. What are the macroeconomic effects of essentially putting a couple hundred quid into people's pockets each month whilst simultaneously allowing low-income families to travel more often and for longer distances than ever before?
Nonesense, see answer to question 1.
3. What will citizens decide to do about the surplus of car parks and the waning number of vehicles parked overnight on city streets?
I’m not really sure what this question is asking. Where are you anticipating all the autonomous vehicles to park? Or are you anticipating they will constantly drive around causing increased pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Why do you assume that all users will bear all costs of autonomous ride sharing? What other revenue streams can operators weave into the experience? And what happens when third-party brands get involved?
Have you ever been to Thailand? Basically tuk tuk drivers are paid by shops and stop at those shops on the way to your other destination. Is this what you are suggesting? If so more people will choose to buy their own car and avoid constant advertising or interruptions.
5. Up to 30,000 people die annually in road deaths in both the EU and US. Millions more are severely injured. What are the human and economic effects of a massive reduction in these figures, if, as anticipated, autonomous vehicles prove far safer?
This has nothing to do with car ownership method.
Firstly I don’t doubt the rise of autonomous vehicles. I’m just separating that from people choosing to own or hire them like a taxi.
1. What will many people choose to do when total cost of ownership -- for point to point transportation -- becomes, say, half of that to own and maintain a personal car?
Have you translated this from a foreign launguaue using google translate?
Anyway, this already happens, if you do a few journeys here and there a taxi or bus will always be cheaper. People choose to buy and use their own car. That won’t change unless the cost becomes prohibitive. Let’s be honest providing an electric autonomous vehicle is hardly going to be cheaper than mr Kahn providing the same service in his 10 year old Octavia and cash in his back pocket.
2. What are the macroeconomic effects of essentially putting a couple hundred quid into people's pockets each month whilst simultaneously allowing low-income families to travel more often and for longer distances than ever before?
Nonesense, see answer to question 1.
3. What will citizens decide to do about the surplus of car parks and the waning number of vehicles parked overnight on city streets?
I’m not really sure what this question is asking. Where are you anticipating all the autonomous vehicles to park? Or are you anticipating they will constantly drive around causing increased pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Why do you assume that all users will bear all costs of autonomous ride sharing? What other revenue streams can operators weave into the experience? And what happens when third-party brands get involved?
Have you ever been to Thailand? Basically tuk tuk drivers are paid by shops and stop at those shops on the way to your other destination. Is this what you are suggesting? If so more people will choose to buy their own car and avoid constant advertising or interruptions.
5. Up to 30,000 people die annually in road deaths in both the EU and US. Millions more are severely injured. What are the human and economic effects of a massive reduction in these figures, if, as anticipated, autonomous vehicles prove far safer?
This has nothing to do with car ownership method.
bloomen said:
Where I'm at there are 2000 people or so. In the average day perhaps 300-500 want to go somewhere, perhaps more. Going somewhere, to shop or work, is a bare minimum of 30 minutes, more like 45.
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Well the answer is that everyone has a car now, and by sharing they will need less cars, and therefore it will be a more efficienct use of capital and resources, even after ensuring that everyone has access when the need them. I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Whether that is 20% of current vehicles as referenced in the article above I doubt, given higher journey times in the country, but half should be easily possible.
unsprung said:
bloomen said:
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
"By combining ride sharing with car sharing, MIT research has shown that it would be possible to take every passenger to his or her destination at the time they need to be there, with 80 percent fewer cars."That's a reduction of eighty percent in the number of cars on the road! Article here.
As humans, despite how we tend to react and think initially, we change and adapt to our environment incredibly rapidly. For example if the price of petrol doubled overnight and on a permanent basis we would actually adapt very rapidly. We would change, business would change. We just have a habit of thinking that how it is today is how it has to be tomorrow but forget that how it is today is already different from how it was yesterday and that how it will be tomorrow will be different.
loafer123 said:
bloomen said:
Where I'm at there are 2000 people or so. In the average day perhaps 300-500 want to go somewhere, perhaps more. Going somewhere, to shop or work, is a bare minimum of 30 minutes, more like 45.
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Well the answer is that everyone has a car now, and by sharing they will need less cars, and therefore it will be a more efficienct use of capital and resources, even after ensuring that everyone has access when the need them. I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Whether that is 20% of current vehicles as referenced in the article above I doubt, given higher journey times in the country, but half should be easily possible.
Flumpo said:
loafer123 said:
bloomen said:
Where I'm at there are 2000 people or so. In the average day perhaps 300-500 want to go somewhere, perhaps more. Going somewhere, to shop or work, is a bare minimum of 30 minutes, more like 45.
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Well the answer is that everyone has a car now, and by sharing they will need less cars, and therefore it will be a more efficienct use of capital and resources, even after ensuring that everyone has access when the need them. I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Whether that is 20% of current vehicles as referenced in the article above I doubt, given higher journey times in the country, but half should be easily possible.
All valid questions, but is the onus not on the people telling us driverless cars are the future to prove the information? In response to what you wrote:
unsprung said:
1. What will many people choose to do when total cost of ownership -- for point to point transportation -- becomes, say, half of that to own and maintain a personal car?
Good question. Is there any proof that this can genuinely be achieved given there is still a cost involved in buying, running, cleaning the cars etc? Much like a hire car (which can be had for £15 a day even now). Or indeed what's to stop someone now not spending £250 a month (plus fuel, tax, etc) on a 118d vs £70 a month (plus fuel tax, etc) on a Fiat 500? Or if you need the space £500 a month on a 'Previum SUV' vs £250 a month on something like a Peugeot. It's an interesting question. Car's don't make financial sense at all, and yet the majority of us still want them, whether we're enthusiasts or not.unsprung said:
2. What are the macroeconomic effects of essentially putting a couple hundred quid into people's pockets each month whilst simultaneously allowing low-income families to travel more often and for longer distances than ever before?
I guess as above? Would people actually chose to spend that £200 elsewhere, or would they just spend the same because 'oh wow.....I can get a Mercedes lease now rather than just a Ford!'unsprung said:
3. What will citizens decide to do about the surplus of car parks and the waning number of vehicles parked overnight on city streets?
Where would all the driverless cars be overnight? In a city like London, they certainly couldn't all be on the outskirts as they wouldn't be able to get into the city quick enough to supply the demand in the morning. Furthermore, it assumes that everyone subscribes to the 'no personal car' model.unsprung said:
4. Why do you assume that all users will bear all costs of autonomous ride sharing? What other revenue streams can operators weave into the experience? And what happens when third-party brands get involved?
Why does this not already happen with taxi companies? Corporations like Google aren't a charity, so any extra they get from advertisement isn't going to be offered as some kind of humanitarian donation to make your daily transport cheaper is it?unsprung said:
5. Up to 30,000 people die annually in road deaths in both the EU and US. Millions more are severely injured. What are the human and economic effects of a massive reduction in these figures, if, as anticipated, autonomous vehicles prove far safer?
That's a deeper more hard to answer question. Why would anyone ever get into a car knowing the statistics. Again, the eradication of all deaths assumes a completely utopian future. The reality is a mix of driverless and driven cars for a long time to come. That also assumes it isn't also possible to alleviate the majority of car crashes in driven cars due to active and passive safety (which I don't believe is true). It also assumes people won't die in autonomous cars. They will. It's already happened and will continue to happen due to unforeseen circumstances, unavoidable situations and programming errors. Much like the fact that 10,000 or so people a year will be killed falling out of bed. And yet we still all get into bed every night.... (genuine statistic!)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.Flumpo said:
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.
I'm not sure that's true. I'd LOVE to get rid of my car and a driverless pod or such would be perfect.People always say they won't change their minds, but they always do. 30 years ago most people would be aghast at renting a car rather than buying outright. But marketers get involved and they end up doing just that.
When providers point out that the average punter can save £XXX and go an extra holiday each year, AND it saves the planet AND whatever, and the government is squeezing the same punter from the other end by pushing up tax, people eventually do as they're told.
Except people on here, obviously.
unsprung said:
Flumpo said:
loafer123 said:
bloomen said:
Where I'm at there are 2000 people or so. In the average day perhaps 300-500 want to go somewhere, perhaps more. Going somewhere, to shop or work, is a bare minimum of 30 minutes, more like 45.
I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Well the answer is that everyone has a car now, and by sharing they will need less cars, and therefore it will be a more efficienct use of capital and resources, even after ensuring that everyone has access when the need them. I don't see how you'd ever have enough of a fleet to service that or have them all in the right place at the right time.
It reminds me of a copper who used to work in Highland Perthshire.
On an average evening he'd get a call an hour away, then a more important one an hour in the opposite direction. Some nights he wouldn't get anywhere.
Whether that is 20% of current vehicles as referenced in the article above I doubt, given higher journey times in the country, but half should be easily possible.
Haven’t you just said we are only 20 years away? After that I would imagine the technology will stagnate along the lines of aeroplanes or indeed taxis. If the majority do car share, then the need for performance or handling is removed. Instead people are likely to stick to services they know are clean and reliable.
One of your key arguments to seems to be price, as being superior to individual car ownership. This won’t result in constant new car production, instead it probably means software updates and easily/quickly cleanable interiors.
I don’t think the job possibilities are endless no.
technodup said:
Flumpo said:
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.
I'm not sure that's true. I'd LOVE to get rid of my car and a driverless pod or such would be perfect.People always say they won't change their minds, but they always do. 30 years ago most people would be aghast at renting a car rather than buying outright. But marketers get involved and they end up doing just that.
When providers point out that the average punter can save £XXX and go an extra holiday each year, AND it saves the planet AND whatever, and the government is squeezing the same punter from the other end by pushing up tax, people eventually do as they're told.
Except people on here, obviously.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff