Driving is extinct according to the BBC...!

[PaulsM3]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45786690

Anyone worried about this news? Hanging on to that car in your garage so you can enjoy it when you retire? Maybe we won't be able to....
I'm interested to see what people think to this prediction- no need to own a car within 20 years? And maybe not even a choice to own a car within 30 years! Sounds scary!!
The low costs being quoted don't make any sense as the government will need to tax the service heavily to replace road fund licenses, fuel duty, VAT lost from new car sales etc but my main concern is not being able to drive a car!

[eldar]

PaulsM3 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45786690

Anyone worried about this news? Hanging on to that car in your garage so you can enjoy it when you retire? Maybe we won't be able to....
I'm interested to see what people think to this prediction- no need to own a car within 20 years? And maybe not even a choice to own a car within 30 years! Sounds scary!!
The low costs being quoted don't make any sense as the government will need to tax the service heavily to replace road fund licenses, fuel duty, VAT lost from new car sales etc but my main concern is not being able to drive a car!

It makes the point that personal transport went from horse based to car based over a couple of decades.

People still own horses, but for fun rather than everyday transport. Why shouldn't the cars of today be similar?

[soupdragon1]

Who knows what the future holds....I'll have one of the driverless cars please - with the optional bed and coffee machine if you don't mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwPhBrxdwm8

[Jag_NE]

pretty crap article, starting off with the driverless cars will cut costs by 50% remark. That's only for people who use taxis in the first place. Its a false saving for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time. It will undoubtedly be safer if all cars are autonomous, however.

[85Carrera]

Typical BBC bullst.

He doesn’t mention the environmental argument because if his frankly ridiculous hypothesis is correct there will be massive environmental consequences:

1. Scrapping ICE cars
2. Producing sufficient electricity for every journey taken to be electric
3. The environmental impact of mining and then having to dispose of lithium etc in the batteries

[The Selfish Gene]

usual lefty idiots that work for BBC.

dismiss and delete

[S100HP]

BBC Hack said:

But seriously, I've deliberately put these arguments forcefully to prompt debate and we want to hear what you think.

[RushDom]

You'd hope that being advertising free, the BBC would shy away from such clickbait-y nonsense articles like this, but it seems they've done the opposite. Anyway.

I've got a book about cars from 1964 that quite confidently predicts that by the year 2000 all cars will be driverless (using radio control from the motorway equivalent of an ATC tower), and will be - quite laughably - powered by nuclear reactors. The sheer confidence with which it makes these claims seems woefully misguided in hindsight, but the book is deadly serious and goes into quite some detail about how all of these new technologies will work.

[soupdragon1]

RushDom said:

You'd hope that being advertising free, the BBC would shy away from such clickbait-y nonsense articles like this, but it seems they've done the opposite. Anyway.

I've got a book about cars from 1964 that quite confidently predicts that by the year 2000 all cars will be driverless (using radio control from the motorway equivalent of an ATC tower), and will be - quite laughably - powered by nuclear reactors. The sheer confidence with which it makes these claims seems woefully misguided in hindsight, but the book is deadly serious and goes into quite some detail about how all of these new technologies will work.

We can't really use a failed prediction from 1964 as a guide rule to further predictions. The difference now, is that we are already a few paces down the footpath to driverless cars. There is every chance that it will be end up as a dead end, but that book from 1964 has little bearing on where we are now.

[Sheepshanks]

Jag_NE said:

pretty crap article, starting off with the driverless cars will cut costs by 50% remark. That's only for people who use taxis in the first place. Its a false saving for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time.

I don't know - I work from home and have become aware that a lot of the cars around me are barely used. I'm sure many owners cost per mile figures are ridiculous.

[4x4Tyke]

You lot are missing an important point, we are atypical, we are car enthusiasts, we are a dying breed, like it or not.

The article is talking to a broader demographic, it is generalising about that broad group.

Try talking to younger people about learning to drive, owning cars, tinkering with them. They literally have no interest in it many of them simply don't get it, my nieces and nephews are coming of age and seem to little interest in even learning to drive, they same is true of most their friends.

[Jag_NE]

Sheepshanks said:

Jag_NE said:

pretty crap article, starting off with the driverless cars will cut costs by 50% remark. That's only for people who use taxis in the first place. Its a false saving for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time.

I don't know - I work from home and have become aware that a lot of the cars around me are barely used. I'm sure many owners cost per mile figures are ridiculous.

Fair point. I was thinking along the lines that the article assumes a cost saving because a driver is eliminated. Most of us rarely pay a driver as we drive it ourselves, there isn’t a cost to reduce.

[PaulsM3]

I just hope that there's a half way house for long enough where enthusiasts can still own and drive ICE cars. I can't see the internal combustion engine surviving long once driverless cars become the norm though.

[carte blanche]

Isn't one of the greatest challenges associated with autonomous cars the question of liability in the event of an accident? The article makes the point that autonomous vehicles will be safer than human drivers, which may be true, however if an accident were to happen (no matter how remote the possibility) who is to blame if, for example, two autonomous vehicles were to collide, or one was to hit a pedestrian? With a vehicle driven by a human driver, liability can simply be placed on the driver and they are required to have adequate insurance. Who is going to accept responsibility for the possibility of self-driving technology going wrong and resulting in injury/loss of life? I wonder how the motor insurance industry would view this matter. Who would be responsible for insuring a self-driving vehicle? Presumably not the passenger, so would it be the manufacturer?

[Sheepshanks]

carte blanche said:

Who would be responsible for insuring a self-driving vehicle? Presumably not the passenger, so would it be the manufacturer?

I would imagine operating companies would run the cars, rather than manufacturers themselves.

I don't see insurance as an issue - overall for the industry it's a zero sum game, it's just a matter of how claims are divvied out.

[928]

4x4Tyke said:

Try talking to younger people about learning to drive, owning cars, tinkering with them. They literally have no interest in it many of them simply don't get it, my nieces and nephews are coming of age and seem to little interest in even learning to drive, they same is true of most their friends.

Based in a large urban area? Tinkering maybe, but outside of the M25 there is still a lot of interest in learing to drive. Move on out here to the sticks and if you don't drive, you aren't going anywhere other than school or out with M&D, so lots at least learn to drive. Move on to USA and 15yo neice is really into cars, and can't wait to learn next year, same as most of her class, male or female.

[Johnnytheboy]

eldar said:

It makes the point that personal transport went from horse based to car based over a couple of decades.

People still own horses, but for fun rather than everyday transport. Why shouldn't the cars of today be similar?

We didn't live in a society that liked banning stuff so much back then?

[GIYess]

soupdragon1 said:

Who knows what the future holds....I'll have one of the driverless cars please - with the optional bed and coffee machine if you don't mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwPhBrxdwm8

Hmm I don't know can you imagine the gypsy road blocks, car would stop they would say thank you very much. You'd go to sleep in your car and wake up on the pavement beside an abandoned horse and a pile of fly tipped junk

[boyse7en]

eldar said:

It makes the point that personal transport went from horse based to car based over a couple of decades.

People still own horses, but for fun rather than everyday transport. Why shouldn't the cars of today be similar?

They probably will be and, like horses are today, they will mostly be used on private land or tracks.
If autonomous cars do take off, I can't see them allowing "driverless" cars to continue to use the road. We are just too unpredictable.

[jfire]

See other thread where the majority of posters can't see future of electric cars.

I had a test drive in Tesla where the salesman 'wasn't allowed to talk about' the technology which would read traffic lights and road signs, were self driving vehicles permitted.

Note these futuristic contraptions to transport us are still very much cars and were we not meant to drive them, wouldn't have controls.