Driverless cars and the ownerless future

[unsprung]

RobDickinson said:

Science and published research >>>>> uninformed opinion of random internet guy.

+1

[samoht]

RacerMike said:

What I'm really not convinced about is the self driving, ownerless future, and this perhaps comes largely from my lack of understanding as to where the actual business case comes from. To be clear, this is specifically the idea that a significant number of people who currently do own a car now, won't own a car in the future and will just pay a subscription or 'payg' fee to have a driverless car turn up and take them somewhere.

source: http://www.businessinsider.com/no-one-will-own-a-c...

What I really don't understand is:

1) Why does this market not already exist? Can someone not just use taxi's and public transport already if they want?
2) What would make a user choose a Mercedes taxi...sorry, driverless car, over a Renault?
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?

So this is not specifically about the driverless aspect (I'm pretty confident we'll see full motorway autonomy modes on cars within the next 5 years and potentially full autonomy modes in cars in the next 10) but more the idea that companies like WAYMO and Uber will mean that hardly anyone owns a car anymore. Full autonomy and an ownerless future seem to go hand in hand. So where actually are these predictions coming from? If we can refrain from conspiracy theories about Big Brother, I'd like to have some genuine understanding from anyone who knows the actual business model and where that data comes from.

1) The minicab market does exist, and is growing (Uber etc). Driverless taxis will be cheaper and more dependable than human-driven ones, which will grow the existing market further.
2) What makes a rich person choose to be chauffeured in a Mercedes over a Renault today?
3) One problem with renting things is that you need to fetch them from some central distribution station, and take it back afterwards. Remember taking videos back to Blockbuster? The key attribute of shared driverless cars is that they can bring themselves to your door, and go back afterwards - it's quite hard to make a bicycle do this!

I think saying hardly anyone will own a car is exaggeration, that's not what I foresee.

However, there is an existing trend towards fewer young people getting cars, and wider use of minicab services like Uber. At the same time, many companies are working on self-driving cars. For the next few years, these cars will be expensive (imagine a Mondeo that costs the same as a Ferrari, by the time you've got all the LIDAR etc on board), and will be limited to certain routes, areas or cities that have been mapped out. So if you're looking for a market for this sort of expensive, limited tech, the taxi market is perfect - taking out the human gives you a cost advantage, you get high utilisation for the expensive car, and covering a limited region is fine. That's why the first fully autonomous vehicles are taxis. (are, not will be - Waymo is already live in Arizona).

Some people will use these services who don't have a car today. Some will use them who have a car now, but would rather not. And some users will have their own car, but will find it convenient to be collected from the station, or the pub, or a wedding.

Ten years hence, the cost will come down and we'll see it becoming an option when buying a new car, I guess.

So in my mind, autonomy will come to the taxi market first, and the taxi market will continue growing as ownership declines, but it's not a total replacement - people will still own cars, and in future, will own cars that will offer the option of taking the wheel for you.

[irc]

DonkeyApple said:

The Minicab driver could collect the car or even chauffeur the owner to work and then said end the next 6 hours working the vehicle and generating revenue before wiping it down of all the filth, cum, vomit, faecal waste and blood and returning it to the owner or chauffeuring the owner home and then taking the car out to work a night shift before returning it at the end of the night?

Why would a private owner who used his car 5% of the time want a mincab driver wearing it out running up 95% of the miles?

Why would someone want to shell out hard earned cash to buy a car which drunks/junkies/messy eaters would destroy?

Having seen the issues with rental cars what happens when the car is dinged and the mincab driver denies all knowledge.

How much would it cost to insure a car used most of the time as a minicab?

What happens when Joe Cabby has your car an hour away and there is some sort of family emergency?

I like having a car only the family uses. I like having a car available when I want it without pre-planning. Yes it is more expensive but I don't car. I don't live on baked beans on toast either because I enjoy better food. Why would I rent my car out when I don't have to?

[irc]

samoht said:

1) The minicab market does exist, and is growing (Uber etc). Driverless taxis will be cheaper and more dependable than human-driven ones, which will grow the existing market further..

Keeping this in perspective there are around 31 million cars in the UK. There are around 281'000 taxis and private hire cars. So I would say around 99% of cars are not Uber/taxi/private hire.

Looks like the people still voting with their wallets for using private or company cars when they can afford them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299972/average...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

[RacerMike]

irc said:

Keeping this in perspective there are around 31 million cars in the UK. There are around 281'000 taxis and private hire cars. So I would say around 99% of cars are not Uber/taxi/private hire.

Looks like the people still voting with their wallets for using private or company cars when they can afford them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299972/average...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Despite as I mentioned, working for a car company, I find numbers like that staggering. 31 MILLION cars. Just stop and think about how ridiculous that is as a number! Imagine lining them up and counting them as you drive by. 31 million times!

It's really interesting to see there are two fairly polarising opinions. Those who think ownership is an old fashioned prospect and those who think it's what everyone will always aspire to. It suggests that maybe there is a possible market for it, providing they can genuinely be cheap enough....and by cheap enough I guess it'll have to be so cheap people won't ignore it.

It's interesting to see both sides on here when you consider this is a forum where people come to talk about cars....so excludes Barry and Jane who have a 1.1 Corsa next door.

[J4CKO]

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.

[RacerMike]

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.

Genuine question.....have you suggested they get rid of the second car and just rent one? It's ridiculously cheap to rent a car these days. I got a one way rental to Heathrow from the Midlands with 10 days notice for £15 from Thrifty. It was a 1.0 Hyundai i10 and used a phenomenal £8 of fuel to do the journey.

[unsprung]

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...




.

[unsprung]

J4CKO said:

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 !

That's how I live today. It helps that there's also a reasonable amount of mass transit around.

This would not work for me, however, if I should live in the aforementioned Montana.

[loafer123]

wc98 said:

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.

i spend a lot of time at the bottom of cliffs fishing, especially in winter. i can see the text now "sorry wc98, due to heavy snowfall in the last two hours all cars are now off the road". i can see the benefits for areas of relatively high population density,not so much for the majority of the land mass in scotland.

I think you missed my use of the word “owning”.

Just because it is a driverless car, doesn’t mean you can’t own it yourself...

[DonkeyApple]

unsprung said:

RacerMike said:

unsprung said:

Using option B above, I travel approximately three miles for the equivalent of £2.80. Several times a week.

I feel slightly ashamed to say I can never bring myself to do this. Don’t have a problem (and quite enjoy) talking to the driver, but I just don’t really fancy sharing a cab with a stranger. I tend to feel that avoiding the prospect of dealing with some complete fruit loop is worth a couple of quid (no offence meant here btw. I’m not suggesting you’re the fruit loop!).

The first couple of times that I did this, I, too, was a bit uncomfortable.

Keep in mind, however, that all riders (at least of the two services which I've mentioned) are registered users with a phone number, credit card, billing address and photo on file at the company. Any untoward behaviour is reported by drivers and users -- and the offending individuals can be banned, drivers included.

In two years of ride sharing, I've had maybe two experiences that were uncomfortable or inappropriate. And on mass transit, many more than that!

It's not unusual to travel much of the way across a large city for about £10.00. At such rates, you quickly become comfortable with the idea.

I don’t know. Sounds a lot like being a bus wker.

[RobDickinson]

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/ED19393...

[Valgar]

I can't see driverless cars being a thing, just think about how many sensors there are on a driverless car, now think of the Italians making those sensors.

Do you think those cars would last 10-15 years? I don't.

[rxe]

The problem (IMO) was nailed on Page 1. If you have the density of cars required to make it a proper service where you can summon a car and have it at a moment’s notice ... you need a LOT of cars.

When I’m in London, Uber is pretty convenient for casual travel - I’m a few miles from home, see it there is a car in the vicinity, if there is, great, if there isn’t, I’ll walk further or get a bus. There are loads times where there are no Ubers, or you can get one, but pay 3x the normal price. So even in the largest city in the UK, with a catastrophically loss making ride service, it is patchy. Outside urban areas, Uber is a joke. 30 minutes+ for a car, if you can get one.

The business model doesn’t work, and my experience of 20 years in Tech Companies says “only follow the money if they are paying you cash to do so”.....

[TooMany2cvs]

rxe said:

Outside urban areas, Uber is a joke. 30 minutes+ for a car, if you can get one.

I saw an Uber round here once.

He was parked up, waiting to drive his fare the 80+ miles back to Brum.

[DonkeyApple]

RobDickinson said:

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/ED19393...

This is just basic economics as Western consumers continue to run out of money the cost of a motor car will continue to move out of reach (it already is for most) as will the cost of land to keep it etc. Companies will step up to fill that growing gap between the pure convenience of the private car and the fixed route of the bus. Whether that continued trend towards poverty is something to be celebrating is a different matter but it is what will drive many into car sharing.

The key will be how firms like Uber manage to balance the social needs of the consumer as the user demographic expands in both socio economic directions. Have you not noticed that in all mid tier ‘blog’ style news reports such as your link above they interview the exact same person? The on trend, younger, mid work and social level person? It’s worth questioning why they never interview Gary the white supremacist, Steve the Soap Dodger, Gladdis the gluesniffer, Lawrence the Luddite, Simple Simon or any of the people who make up the bulk of the population. It’s always the same guy, every single time.

And how representative of Western society is that chap? If we call this metrosexual chap ‘Clive’ you can now have a look at how often Clive appears talking to you in all the articles that you read. There is nothing wrong with Clive at all. Clive is a nice, normal chap of reasonable education, nice job prospects, his insurance grouping is good. Clive has a good credit rating although he probably spends more on financing debt each month at he expense of his pension contributions but Clive is a bit of an optimist and believer that tech is good and that it will sort everything out. Clive is a good guy who would be hard pressed to offend anyone in theory. Clive is the man that all marketers of tech pitch to.

But go to where you can see real humanity. Step outside of the fantasy world of blogs and marketing. Go to a shopping centre, an airport, places where humanity gather in all its wonderful shapes and sizes. Are these places full of Clives? Does Clive actually represent human society? Or is Clive only a significant constituent of Western society in blogs about the future or advertorials selling goods?

It’s something to consider when considering social futures. Society isn't made-up of Clives at all. Regardless of adverts using Clive to sell cars and other goods on finance or blogs talking about how Clive lives or press articles where Clive is interviewed purely to endorse how great a product is. Society is made up of everyone other than Clives. Which is probably why the real future rarely works out to be the same future that the marketing guys and Clive try to pre sell you goods for.

[Roger Irrelevant]

loafer123 said:

wc98 said:

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.

i spend a lot of time at the bottom of cliffs fishing, especially in winter. i can see the text now "sorry wc98, due to heavy snowfall in the last two hours all cars are now off the road". i can see the benefits for areas of relatively high population density,not so much for the majority of the land mass in scotland.

I think you missed my use of the word “owning”.

Just because it is a driverless car, doesn’t mean you can’t own it yourself...

Yep you're right, I had missed that! I agree that I'd love to own a self-driving car. I can think of so many occasions when an on-demand shared one wouldn't be suitable for me (e.g. pretty much every time I want to leave some stuff in the car), that I can't see me ever not owning a car outright. It may be that I would save money by going ownerless, but I've never found running that expensive or difficult in the first place so I could only save a relatively small amount of money at the expense of a load more hassle.

[J4CKO]

RacerMike said:

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.

Genuine question.....have you suggested they get rid of the second car and just rent one? It's ridiculously cheap to rent a car these days. I got a one way rental to Heathrow from the Midlands with 10 days notice for £15 from Thrifty. It was a 1.0 Hyundai i10 and used a phenomenal £8 of fuel to do the journey.

It would probably work ok, but they dont do long journeys so dont need to, my dad keeps his car as he loves it, it isnt pure utility like a lot of folk, like most of us on here we have one because we want, not need it.

Even a lot of non petrolheads are car enthusiasts, in that they may not be all that fussed about going fast, the ultimate in handling but like a nice car with the right badge and all that, this is why you see so many crossover type things, Q3's, X1's, Evoques and the like, not maybe on our radar but superb products that people want to own, or at least borrow, thing is though its on the drive however it is financed.

What the marketeers and car companies need to crack is how to replicate that, difficult on a pay as you go basis.

Plenty of folk arent interested in status, ownership, what the neighbors think but many more are, it could get as weird as your car is there at specific times, but during the day, whilst you are at work it goes out and moonlights as a mini cab to earn its keep, offset the cost etc, like free software with banner ads, pay a few quid and you can turn it off, potentially your third gen autonomous Evoque is say £450 a month, or £300 if you accept additional clauses where it can be used, just like the term, mileage etc.

Suspect there will be 100 percent non owned cars, i.e. like a taxi is now and then whatever networks evolve, privately owned cars could be drafted in as needed, ditto using the batteries as storage for the national grid that can be pulled on when required.

Its going to need a massive change in how we think, like hot desking does, its a pain in the arse getting to your desk and its got crumbs, monitors have been moved and the seat is in some freakish non human position.

You could use your car to good deeds during the day rather than revenue, it could be helping some old lady get her shopping back from the supermarket, taking someone without transport to a hospital appointment.

So many possibilities, opportunities and new ways to do stuff, but of course, the main worry I can hear coming through the ether is "But what if it gets scratched"

[Zetec-S]

RacerMike said:

unsprung said:

Using option B above, I travel approximately three miles for the equivalent of £2.80. Several times a week.

I feel slightly ashamed to say I can never bring myself to do this. Don’t have a problem (and quite enjoy) talking to the driver, but I just don’t really fancy sharing a cab with a stranger. I tend to feel that avoiding the prospect of dealing with some complete fruit loop is worth a couple of quid (no offence meant here btw. I’m not suggesting you’re the fruit loop!).

And this is the problem with some of these studies, and ideas coming out of the big US tech firms. They see it from an American point of view. I imagine a lot more Americans are prepared to ride share. In the UK I'd guess only a very small percentage would be prepared to do it.

Any business model would have to be adapted to the each country and it's culture. Whether it's still viable is another issue.

[DonkeyApple]

irc said:

DonkeyApple said:

The Minicab driver could collect the car or even chauffeur the owner to work and then said end the next 6 hours working the vehicle and generating revenue before wiping it down of all the filth, cum, vomit, faecal waste and blood and returning it to the owner or chauffeuring the owner home and then taking the car out to work a night shift before returning it at the end of the night?

Why would a private owner who used his car 5% of the time want a mincab driver wearing it out running up 95% of the miles?

Why would someone want to shell out hard earned cash to buy a car which drunks/junkies/messy eaters would destroy?

Having seen the issues with rental cars what happens when the car is dinged and the mincab driver denies all knowledge.

How much would it cost to insure a car used most of the time as a minicab?

What happens when Joe Cabby has your car an hour away and there is some sort of family emergency?

I like having a car only the family uses. I like having a car available when I want it without pre-planning. Yes it is more expensive but I don't car. I don't live on baked beans on toast either because I enjoy better food. Why would I rent my car out when I don't have to?

You appreciate that this was the point that I was making? I was questioning the genuine appetite for sitting in the faecal waste and other bodily fluids of random strangers and paying for the honour.

But the model has actually existed for decades. It’s not just used in the premium car market to help people pay for the car but people do it with yachts, planes, holiday homes and all sorts of premium, lifestyle goods. It’s not a big leap to see how there is clearly a section of society that is perfectly happy to ‘pimp their credit rating’ and tolerate sharing the ‘asset’ with strangers.

But that also with autonomous cars one of the primary economic gains will be from blending the concept of BTL with the concept of pimping and that those with money will use their excellent credit rating to buy a fleet of ‘bhes’ and put them out to work. There will then be seminars at crappy hotels for stupid people where a greasy little thief will tell them how they can also be rich from doing no work so long as they give him all their money.