Driverless cars and the ownerless future
Discussion
I work in the car industry and have, for the last two years been working on an EV. I'm pretty open minded about EVs and although I initially felt a bit aggrieved/negative about them in the early days, working on this project and spending many thousand miles driving them, I've got to admit that I'm largely converted.....providing that we still have a mix of BEVs and PHEVs/HEVs in the future (which as a side note I'm reasonably confident will be the case).
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? 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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
I agree about the ownerless model. Unless there is a major change in how people live and work most of us need to drive at roughly the same times (6am-9am and 4pm-7pm).
Therefore, just like how everyone's cars sit idle in your work car park for eight hours a day, won't the ownerless model suffer from the same peaks and troughs in demand?
Therefore, just like how everyone's cars sit idle in your work car park for eight hours a day, won't the ownerless model suffer from the same peaks and troughs in demand?
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.
It would probably cost me over £100 a day to get a taxi to and from work at the moment. I'd guess a driverless car would be a lot less as you're not paying a human for their time as well.RacerMike said:
2) What would make a user choose a Mercedes taxi...sorry, driverless car, over a Renault?
What makes someone choose to buy a Mercedes over a Renault at the moment?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?
It remains to be seen if this is actually going to be a viable business model for the masses when the technology arrives and is accepted.FWIW I can't see the tech being widely adopted any time soon, and even if/when it does get accepted I think most people will still want some sort of status symbol parked on their front drive.
You have answered your own question to an extent, a taxi is the current autonomous/non owned vehicle, problem is you have to pay a driver who is expensive, needs to eat and sleep etc.
Nobody needs to have their name on a logbook, we want to, owning cars is what we like but it doesn't mean that it is correct, having a highly complex and expensive machine sat outside your house is mainly down to the current limitations and a bit of vanity but it doesnt need to be there. If you could summon transport much like we do with an Uber nowadays, and there was plenty of capacity then why own a car, just pay for what you use if transport is the only need.
Trouble is we are generally like our own stuff, we dont like sharing, other people sometimes smell and leave bodily fluids but potentially I think it could really work as not everyone is like us car weirdos needing a shiny thing to tend and talk about, for those who truly just want to get where they are going the pay as you go thing could really work.
My next door neighbour is a lovely chap, he cycles a lot of the time but does have a car, an ancient Astra, dont think he has any particular love for it, just means to an end and pretty sure he would get rid if he could just pay for what he needs, now I am sure a base model 2002 Astra isnt breaking his finances but for a lot, its the hassle of MOT's, servicing, breakdowns and the space taken up, he has a driveway, not everyone does.
With leasing we have seen the model develop where you get a nice, new car and a fixed monthly cost, if it breaks it is someone elses problem, dont have to take it for an MOT, Autonomous non owned would extend that.
Probably a full thesis in this for someone, a lot is based on psychology and sociology rather than just the tech.
Nobody needs to have their name on a logbook, we want to, owning cars is what we like but it doesn't mean that it is correct, having a highly complex and expensive machine sat outside your house is mainly down to the current limitations and a bit of vanity but it doesnt need to be there. If you could summon transport much like we do with an Uber nowadays, and there was plenty of capacity then why own a car, just pay for what you use if transport is the only need.
Trouble is we are generally like our own stuff, we dont like sharing, other people sometimes smell and leave bodily fluids but potentially I think it could really work as not everyone is like us car weirdos needing a shiny thing to tend and talk about, for those who truly just want to get where they are going the pay as you go thing could really work.
My next door neighbour is a lovely chap, he cycles a lot of the time but does have a car, an ancient Astra, dont think he has any particular love for it, just means to an end and pretty sure he would get rid if he could just pay for what he needs, now I am sure a base model 2002 Astra isnt breaking his finances but for a lot, its the hassle of MOT's, servicing, breakdowns and the space taken up, he has a driveway, not everyone does.
With leasing we have seen the model develop where you get a nice, new car and a fixed monthly cost, if it breaks it is someone elses problem, dont have to take it for an MOT, Autonomous non owned would extend that.
Probably a full thesis in this for someone, a lot is based on psychology and sociology rather than just the tech.
CzechItOut said:
I agree about the ownerless model. Unless there is a major change in how people live and work most of us need to drive at roughly the same times (6am-9am and 4pm-7pm).
Therefore, just like how everyone's cars sit idle in your work car park for eight hours a day, won't the ownerless model suffer from the same peaks and troughs in demand?
Hadn't thought of this, but a valid point. I suspect in major cities it's less of an issue due to a more constant demand for transport solutions, but surely taxi's offer this already (hence a huge number of people in London just rely on public transport and taxis).Therefore, just like how everyone's cars sit idle in your work car park for eight hours a day, won't the ownerless model suffer from the same peaks and troughs in demand?
Another thing I should have added is the question over what people (particularly families) would do with all the child/family detritus that's usually stored in the car for lack of space at home. Would you not have to take all this with you every time you use one of the driverless vehicles? Where do you put it all at the end of the journey?!
The things that I expect to see in my lifetime:
The cost of batteries falling to the point that an EV is so much cheaper than its ICE equivalent that they become the default utility transport box of choice.
The end of car ownership. It’s pretty much here already as the West already lacks the real wealth to actually buy these expensive goods but that is only going one way and the future for utility transport boxes is just more and more transparent user deals.
End of going to a showroom to procure a car. No one likes these shops and everything is just sold by price and badge so it will just move online. This will probably happen a couple of days after regulators tighten up how finance is sold making the shops almost instantly redundant as they are only really used as a means to sell the finance element of the deal.
Both ICE cars and EVs will have the ability to drive autonomously in certain key situations.
What I don’t see happening for decades is the fully autonomous car that just appears next to you when you summon it via your app and monthly or PAYG contract and f
ks off seconds arefter you get out of it to ferry someone else somewhere.
The cost of batteries falling to the point that an EV is so much cheaper than its ICE equivalent that they become the default utility transport box of choice.
The end of car ownership. It’s pretty much here already as the West already lacks the real wealth to actually buy these expensive goods but that is only going one way and the future for utility transport boxes is just more and more transparent user deals.
End of going to a showroom to procure a car. No one likes these shops and everything is just sold by price and badge so it will just move online. This will probably happen a couple of days after regulators tighten up how finance is sold making the shops almost instantly redundant as they are only really used as a means to sell the finance element of the deal.
Both ICE cars and EVs will have the ability to drive autonomously in certain key situations.
What I don’t see happening for decades is the fully autonomous car that just appears next to you when you summon it via your app and monthly or PAYG contract and f
ks off seconds arefter you get out of it to ferry someone else somewhere. Edited by DonkeyApple on Monday 23 April 14:18
J4CKO said:
You have answered your own question to an extent, a taxi is the current autonomous/non owned vehicle, problem is you have to pay a driver who is expensive, needs to eat and sleep etc.
Nobody needs to have their name on a logbook, we want to, owning cars is what we like but it doesn't mean that it is correct, having a highly complex and expensive machine sat outside your house is mainly down to the current limitations and a bit of vanity but it doesnt need to be there. If you could summon transport much like we do with an Uber nowadays, and there was plenty of capacity then why own a car, just pay for what you use if transport is the only need.
Trouble is we are generally like our own stuff, we dont like sharing, other people sometimes smell and leave bodily fluids but potentially I think it could really work as not everyone is like us car weirdos needing a shiny thing to tend and talk about, for those who truly just want to get where they are going the pay as you go thing could really work.
My next door neighbour is a lovely chap, he cycles a lot of the time but does have a car, an ancient Astra, dont think he has any particular love for it, just means to an end and pretty sure he would get rid if he could just pay for what he needs, now I am sure a base model 2002 Astra isnt breaking his finances but for a lot, its the hassle of MOT's, servicing, breakdowns and the space taken up, he has a driveway, not everyone does.
With leasing we have seen the model develop where you get a nice, new car and a fixed monthly cost, if it breaks it is someone elses problem, dont have to take it for an MOT, Autonomous non owned would extend that.
Probably a full thesis in this for someone, a lot is based on psychology and sociology rather than just the tech.
I think you've gone through most of my own thought processes there. I completely agree that many people like your neighbour would benefit. However, is that really 80% of car owners (as suggested in the article)? And the whole concept of sharing and posession. Surely anyone who buys/leases a 'premium' car does so to show off in some way (whether they admit it or not). Surely leasing a Merc or BMW pod wouldn't appeal to these people as they don't have a nice '£50k mate' lump of shiny car on their drive...Nobody needs to have their name on a logbook, we want to, owning cars is what we like but it doesn't mean that it is correct, having a highly complex and expensive machine sat outside your house is mainly down to the current limitations and a bit of vanity but it doesnt need to be there. If you could summon transport much like we do with an Uber nowadays, and there was plenty of capacity then why own a car, just pay for what you use if transport is the only need.
Trouble is we are generally like our own stuff, we dont like sharing, other people sometimes smell and leave bodily fluids but potentially I think it could really work as not everyone is like us car weirdos needing a shiny thing to tend and talk about, for those who truly just want to get where they are going the pay as you go thing could really work.
My next door neighbour is a lovely chap, he cycles a lot of the time but does have a car, an ancient Astra, dont think he has any particular love for it, just means to an end and pretty sure he would get rid if he could just pay for what he needs, now I am sure a base model 2002 Astra isnt breaking his finances but for a lot, its the hassle of MOT's, servicing, breakdowns and the space taken up, he has a driveway, not everyone does.
With leasing we have seen the model develop where you get a nice, new car and a fixed monthly cost, if it breaks it is someone elses problem, dont have to take it for an MOT, Autonomous non owned would extend that.
Probably a full thesis in this for someone, a lot is based on psychology and sociology rather than just the tech.
Furthermore, I'd be interested to see just how much cheaper a driverless car would actually be? You still need to pay for the car, maintenance, the network running, legal cover, wages for those who run the company, the programming, energy used etc. Most of these costs are actually covered by the taxi driver himself, so whilst he does have a wage, would that percentage be significantly less to cover all the other running costs on their own? Or would the reality be that it's only 10-15% cheaper?
Edited by RacerMike on Monday 23 April 14:15
A taxi is still a relatively expensive commodity because you are effectively still employing a driver (human) to use it, that is the expensive element whereas in a fully autonomous PAYG vehicle (ie a vehicle that doesn't even need a driver), after the initial capex, the running cost would be negligible; therefore as a business makes far far more sense, no?
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.
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.
crashley said:
A taxi is still a relatively expensive commodity because you are effectively still employing a driver (human) to use it, that is the expensive element whereas in a fully autonomous PAYG vehicle (ie a vehicle that doesn't even need a driver), after the initial capex, the running cost would be negligible; therefore as a business makes far far more sense, no?
I'd be interested to understand how much cheaper it would be. And also understand whether cost is the main contributing factor that precludes most current car owners from getting rid of their cars and taking taxi's everywhere. Given that apparently most cars are currently parked for 95% of their life (source: http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/cars-parked-95-perce...), it would suggest that there are other factors at play like convenience, a sense of independence and the sense of ownership.I'm genuinely interested to know whether all this has actually been accounted for. It just feels like the idea is a bit like one of those books from the 80s that said we'd all be flying around in flying cars by the year 2000 and would holiday on the moon....
Ownerless future i don't believe will ever take off.
It may work for the young people who live in the city and want to drive a car to the coast/country over the weekend.
But what about people who live out in the sticks?
Another issue is the topic of natural disasters, places effected to floods, hurricanes, earth quakes. How do you leave the city and keep your family safe if you and another 500,000 people are trying to do the same thing with a limited pool of cars?
These are extreme cases but the joy of having a car is the freedom it gives you, and if you have to book your freedom is that really freedom?
It may work for the young people who live in the city and want to drive a car to the coast/country over the weekend.
But what about people who live out in the sticks?
Another issue is the topic of natural disasters, places effected to floods, hurricanes, earth quakes. How do you leave the city and keep your family safe if you and another 500,000 people are trying to do the same thing with a limited pool of cars?
These are extreme cases but the joy of having a car is the freedom it gives you, and if you have to book your freedom is that really freedom?
RacerMike said:
and will just pay a subscription or 'payg' fee
We sort of already do, PCP and lease is just that by a different name. You pay you pay monthly fee to have the car. Stop paying, and the car gets taken away.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.
I think for many it doesn't make financial sense, or at least the way cars are currently owned, doesn't seem to. As an example, I don't often use a taxi, but the few times I do it's a 9 mile cross country trip, which one way typically costs just over £20. That seems like quite a lot to me, and indeed it makes sense that it does. The Taxi driver still has to pay for the car, road tax, petrol (and tax and tax), tyres and servicing... and then has to pay himself a wage, so I'm not surprised its costs more than me driving. But this does assume (and for me it's true) that the car I use is used a fair bit the rest of the time. As clearly buying a car and all the associated cost just for one trip of 9 miles is silly.RacerMike said:
2) What would make a user choose a Mercedes taxi...sorry, driverless car, over a Renault?
That's where things will be fun. If it's truly driverless 100% of the time, then all the "driver's car" stuff goes out of the window. It'll come down to the inside of the car much much much more. Not just seating, but entertainment etc. Strangely the car companies may find themselves needing to spend more time, effort and R&D on the incar entertainment than they will the engine, etc.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?
As I mentioned at the start, with PCP and the like, we already do. With pushbikes if bought on CC or finance are too. But I think if you look at what you're asking you'll see why.I think you're mixing two things... self-driving, and ownership. Self driving pushbikes aren't something that's likely to happen soon... hence why that's not done. But parking that..
You're asking then more about rental. And as I say, it already happens, Credit, PCP, Lease they all provide goods paid for on the drip. Some you get to keep, some you don't. Where that isn't offered, usually there will be a second market offering loan of the money unsecured (credit).
I suspect where that's not routinely taken, it's because the goods themselves are not expensive enough (So the loan is tiny), or the goods won't last long enough to last the loan period. Forget cars, imagine that on a pushbike. You bought it over 3 years, but after 1 it's no longer working and not economical to repair.
RacerMike said:
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.
I think driverless is the thing that makes ownerless more economically viable. As I mentioned above, if I go with current Taxi's, I have to pay someone's salary on top of the running costs. On a jet plane that's a small fraction of the flight cost. In a car it's not. I suspect the ownerless concept will depend on many things, but people's perception will be the driver. If we start at having your own car, the things you'll miss if you go ownerless, is potential control over when/where it collects you. Then the tidyness of the interior. Finally the cost vs having your own. We could all stand to wait a minute or two if we save a little. Likewise a pristine interior.
And things like wait times are of course massively affected by density. We don't have Uber, Deliveroo etc where I live because there just aren't enough people and enough demand. I suspect the same spread of the above services will be mirrored with ownerless.
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.
Those are all very good statements that may, or may not be true, but they're exactly the statements I'd like to see some evidence behind. They're the kind of statements released by Google and Uber, but they don't really come with any real suggestion that they're true, or really stand up to scrutiny.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.
For example to take the points you make:
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.
Is that the reason? Would a fleet of driverless cars practically be able to deliver a guaranteed zero waiting time even at peak? Why would fuel costs be gone? Do taxi services like Uber not already run 24 hours a day, and when was the last time you shared a taxi with a stranger?
You could also use it to collect children on the school run without having to accompany them which would free up so much time.
True, I get this. But would people have trust in using this? Would you be genuinely happy to completely trust your kids to get in a taxi (driver or no driver) and drop them off at home? Do people not actually quite like the excuse of 'going to pick the kids up' as a way of getting out of work on time and interacting with their children a bit more?
Not suggesting they're not valid, but I feel that statements like this aren't given enough scrutiny and become accepted as justification as to why we'll all be doing away with our own cars.
phil4 said:
We sort of already do, PCP and lease is just that by a different name. You pay you pay monthly fee to have the car. Stop paying, and the car gets taken away.
.
Agree with almost all you've said. I think for me, the jump is that somehow leasing a car now is the same as paying a lease to use a car (that other people use like a taxi). I have no issue with using PCP to finance my car. I know I'm effectively 'renting' it, but it's mine, only I drive it, it's always there when I want it and I take pride in it. It's ultimately psycological as, like you say, if I stopped paying, someone from the finance company comes and takes it away, but I think that's the big hurdle..
Is there some genuine research behind this? Am I odd for not perceiving PCP on a car as a long term rental (from a psychological point of view).
RacerMike said:
Agree with almost all you've said. I think for me, the jump is that somehow leasing a car now is the same as paying a lease to use a car (that other people use like a taxi). I have no issue with using PCP to finance my car. I know I'm effectively 'renting' it, but it's mine, only I drive it, it's always there when I want it and I take pride in it. It's ultimately psycological as, like you say, if I stopped paying, someone from the finance company comes and takes it away, but I think that's the big hurdle.
Is there some genuine research behind this? Am I odd for not perceiving PCP on a car as a long term rental (from a psychological point of view).
No research I've found or done... they're just my thoughts/opinions I'm afraid.Is there some genuine research behind this? Am I odd for not perceiving PCP on a car as a long term rental (from a psychological point of view).
Think how you could soften that hurdle though. Right now, my rented car is sat in front of the office I work in, I can see it. When I get home, it's say in front of my house. I can see it. In both instances when I want to go, I get in and drive.
We can start the softening/hurdle by having the car parked somewhere else. Perhaps it's more efficient to have cars all squeezed (as they can when driving themselves) into a carpark a few miles away with everyone elses from the area. All of a sudden when I leave I have to wait a few minutes.
That's one of the benefits of pseudo-owning it moved to ownerless.
Perhaps if they can then adapt the entertainment when I get in a car, so apart from how I left the sunvisor, everything else is car to car (think of it like extended driver profiles, not just seat position, aircon etc, but my music collection, bluetooth connections etc). If we can do that, then to the end user there's even less tie to a specific car.
Those are just two off the top of my head, but you imagine a car company with lots of very clever people all playing a multi-year long game. With things like the above, and a few perks to go with them (eg. reduced cost)... they'd have us won over to ownerless in no time.
I think there will be a place for both solo use (your own car) and subscription use cars. People who don't like driving, elderly people who don't enjoy it any more, taking kids to school, commuters...all would be happy to use a subscription model.
The reason it will be attractive to these people in particular is that owning a car which is used for 2% of the time is ludicrously inefficient from a capital perspective, so a subscription model could ensure a car is available at 5 mins notice in a village in the countryside and still save lots of money for users.
RacerMike said:
1) Why does this market not already exist? Can someone not just use taxi's and public transport already if they want?
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).RacerMike said:
2) What would make a user choose a Mercedes taxi...sorry, driverless car, over a Renault?
Oooh, lemme guess... Snobbery?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?
Sort-of a two-wheeled Borisbike scheme, y'mean?RacerMike said:
when was the last time you shared a taxi with a stranger?
Every time I get in a taxi....I know it's only my social inhibitions that means I can't sing, fart or generally mumble away to myself. More practically they don't like you playing with the aircon, and often don't like you sitting in the front. Nor do they usually have an easy way to put my own tunes on (headphones excepted).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff