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.
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?!
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
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....
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).
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?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.
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
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!)unsprung said:
It's an interesting graph, but those are some pretty massive 'IF's' aren't they? Especially the bottom one: 'Consumers are enthusiastic and willing to pay'. It also only considers ADAS L4 which means that your own car (which has a steering wheel) can drive itself. Not the driverless pod idea which is ADAS L5 (no steering wheel at all). I have no doubt that there are autonomous driving modes on the way...especially on motorways. But the whole ownership model is the thing I'm dubious about. It requires a huge shift in the way everyone perceives cars and I'm not really that confident that will happen....
unsprung said:
Today most cars are parked for 95 percent of their usable lifetimes. They are in use only five percent of the time. Autonomous ride share vehicles, in contrast, are projected to be in use something like 70 percent of the time, IIRC.
The answer to your question is that many vehicles in and around London will not be parked overnight; they will be in use overnight. Remember also that fewer parking spaces and fewer servicing spaces will be needed. We are not substituting everybody's personal car with an autonomous car on a one-to-one basis. Because ride sharing.
But if every person who once drove their own car in London (why you'd bother over using mass transit is beyond me) uses a pod, that's still the same number of vehicles on the road at rush hour (see below). And the reason they're not used 95% of the time is because they're parked either overnight or during work hours. So unless 95% more uses are found in the small hours or middle of the day, there will be the same number of parked cars around.The answer to your question is that many vehicles in and around London will not be parked overnight; they will be in use overnight. Remember also that fewer parking spaces and fewer servicing spaces will be needed. We are not substituting everybody's personal car with an autonomous car on a one-to-one basis. Because ride sharing.
unsprung said:
Also, as DonkeyApple has noted, we will experience a time shift, or at least greater flexibility, in lifestyles and work schedules. Entirely new business models will appear -- and lead to both economic growth and personal opportunity.
Whilst plenty of companies are trying to become more flexible with their working hours, the reality is, unless your business model is entirely internet based with zero human interaction required (i.e. most of Google and Ubers work) 'flexible working' doesn't really work. My company has tried it's best to embrace 'collaborative working spaces', 'touch down areas', working from home and flexible hours, but whilst initially it seemed quite nice, it just doesn't work. Taken to it's extreme, what if Dave who I need to talk to, to resolve an issue decides he isn't working until 3pm because he 'did an all nighter playing COD which really helps his creativity'? He may be able to do his work when he comes in, but I can't do mine. And that's the reality. People aren't going to start varying their working times significantly. It makes sense to work from about 9-5, and because a lot of people like actually interacting with people face to face, they like to actually go and talk to people in an office.At the complete other end of the ideas spectrum, have a read of this https://singularityhub.com/2018/02/14/why-the-rise... which suggests ownership levels might actually increase!
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?
I genuinely just laughed out loud at this!I think you sum up the things many gloss over though. People are incredibly possessive, and the idea of sharing is actually pretty abhorrent to many. Especially those who buy something 'premium'. The idea that someone else gets to enjoy your lovely premium car that you've (also) paid for is beyond acceptable to most....
Edited by RacerMike on Monday 23 April 21:35
The reality is that the option to try all this is apparently going to be possible fairly soon, so I guess we’ll see what happens! Waymo have signed up to buy a load of EVs including 20,000 I Pace’s, so I suppose the litmus test will be to see how it takes off. I’d be interested to try one to see what it’s like if curiousty of course, but it will be interesting to see if it takes off beyond this.
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!).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!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...
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 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.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.
mgv8 said:
If you look at Amzon who lost money for years before making cash Uber is still bulding market. 3.5milion just in London is good numbers. Working from home is way more normal than before, so commuing habits are changing. Also look at the move to bikes in London. Your view is from how things are now, but thing are a changing.
As I said a few posts back, working from home works in some specific industries, but for many it doesn't, and that isn't going to change because it's simply not possible to do a lot of jobs from home! The majority of all employees (apart from the wonderful collaborative co-op vegan peace charities who offer new and inspiring solutions to an ever changing tech world) will continue to need to work together face to face, do actual physical things in a place of work for the majority of the time and commute to and from a place of work.....and believe it or not, the majority of the worlds population don't live in a city like London, New York or LA....mgv8 said:
I said 'cities like London, New York and LA' 
Plenty live in cities yes, but when was the last time a new ride sharing app was developed and launched in S
horpe or the last time you jumped on the tube in Derby?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff