Slashdot Mirror
In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars
HughPickens.com writes: Jerry Hirsch writes in the LA Times that personal transportation is on the cusp of its greatest transformation since the advent of the internal combustion engine. For a century, cars have been symbols of freedom and status. But according to Hirsch, passengers of the future may well view vehicles as just another form of public transportation, to be purchased by the trip or in a subscription. Buying sexy, fast cars for garages could evolve into buying seat-miles in appliance-like pods, piloted by robots, parked in public stalls. "There will come a time when driving the car is like riding the horse," says futurist Peter Schwartz. "Some people will still like to do it, but most of us won't." People still will want to own vehicles for various needs, says James Lentz, chief executive of Toyota's North American operations. They might live in a rural area and travel long distances daily. They might have a big family to haul around. They might own a business that requires transporting supplies. "You will still have people who have the passion for driving the cars and feeling the road," says Lentz. "There may be times when they want the cars to drive them, but they won't be buying autonomous-only cars."
One vision of the future is already playing out in Grenoble, France, where residents can rent from a fleet of 70 pod-like Toyota i-Road and Coms electric cars for short city trips. "It is a sharing program like what you see in Portland with bicycles," says Lentz. Drivers can check out and return the cars at various charging points. Through a subscription, they pay the equivalent of $3.75 for 30 minutes. Because the vehicles are so small, its easy to build out their parking and charging infrastructure. Skeptics should consider the cynicism that greeted the horseless carriage more than a century ago, says Adam Jonas. He adds that fully autonomous vehicles will be here far sooner than the market thinks (PDF). Then, Jonas says, skeptics asked: "Why would any rational person want to replace the assuredness of that hot horse body trustily pulling your comfortable carriage with an unreliable, oil-spurting heap of gears, belts and chains?"
One vision of the future is already playing out in Grenoble, France, where residents can rent from a fleet of 70 pod-like Toyota i-Road and Coms electric cars for short city trips. "It is a sharing program like what you see in Portland with bicycles," says Lentz. Drivers can check out and return the cars at various charging points. Through a subscription, they pay the equivalent of $3.75 for 30 minutes. Because the vehicles are so small, its easy to build out their parking and charging infrastructure. Skeptics should consider the cynicism that greeted the horseless carriage more than a century ago, says Adam Jonas. He adds that fully autonomous vehicles will be here far sooner than the market thinks (PDF). Then, Jonas says, skeptics asked: "Why would any rational person want to replace the assuredness of that hot horse body trustily pulling your comfortable carriage with an unreliable, oil-spurting heap of gears, belts and chains?"
Since I live in a city with decent mass transit, I don't own a car in the present, nor do I especially want or need to.
I also note that some cities, such as Copenhagen, have had self-driving subway trains for years.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Your wild guess about the future is as good as any.
There is no link between autonomously driving cars and car sharing.
Sure there is. With existing car sharing systems or rentals, you either need to go to where the car is via some other means, or someone needs to drive it to you, then drive back to the office, before you can go where you're wanting to go.
With autonomously driving cars, the car can drive itself to you and then you go directly from where you are to where you want to go. It makes it far more practical.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The real story here is that this guy just figured this out now.
Why own a vehicle you don't control anyway?
I think this was clear to most people the second self driving cars became a "thing"
Also assume the car will be filled with TV's blaring ads at you while you're on your way. You'll be able to pay $5 for your seat to heat up and vibrate. If it's a long trip there will be a $20 per passenger in-cabin movie from 1982. Pickup and delivery schedules will vary by over an hour unless you pay a "premium trip fee" etc...
First of all, cost is a big driver of user behavior. As a result anything which makes something cheaper will likely change user behavior. I suspect that a big part of the cost of existing car sharing programs is the logistics of keeping a lot of cars near where people live. If you could instead keep most in cheap industrial areas and move around to meet demand on their own then you'd save a lot of cost. That in turn can be passed onto customers.
Convenience is another big driver, if you make something more convenient then people are more likely to use it. A self-driving car would remove most of the differences in convenience between owning a car and something like ZipCar. The car would be at your door so no need to walk to the closest car sharing location. The car can return itself so you can actually make one way trips. They'll also be a lower chance of no cars being available since they can come to you from further away rather than being limited to just the nearby locations.
(I work for an auto manufacturer, but my opinions are my own. And my lifestyle is my own, and doesn't reflect 100% of slashdot).
1. Peak demand. In car-culture areas there's a peak demand. *Someone* has to own the rush hour fleet. But no business is going to want to invest in a fleet that has 21 hours of downtime during non-peak loads.
2. Consumers want reliability and 100% availability. Consider Uber and Lyft that promise this, except during surge pricing periods. People hate this. It's economically correct in the case of Uber and Lyft, and an obvious idea, but surge pricing during rush hour isn't going to work. People will still own their own cars.
3. Personalization and customization. Hey, I like my cars stock, but I still have my stuff in the center console, my presets on the stereo (yes, 760 am in the morning, I'm a dying breed), and my iPhone paired to Sync. A different car every day isn't going to cut it. And think about comfort, especially on a commute. If it's hit or miss as far as comfort, people are willing to pay for 100% access to a Fusion versus an Elantra (or choose an Elantra versus a smaller B-sized car).
4. Toy haulers. You're not going to call Uber or Lyft to tow your trailer to a state park or tow your boat to a launch. And this isn't 99%'er speaking, this is blue collar worker in my part of the country.
Will annual sales go down? Yeah, probably. Maybe undoubtably (how's that for hedging?). But families in most areas are still going to continue to own their own cars. Maybe not two or three cars -- supplemented by autonomous vehicles or ride sharing -- but the private market most definitely won't dry up, even amongst the 99%.
I'm limiting my projections here to about 50 years. Beyond that, who knows. Most of us will be dead then, so it's good enough.
--Jim (me)
Car2Go uses Smart cars, that can be parked wherever after they are used. Hundreds of them around here, a much smarter and more popular concept than a Zipcar. Among other things, they get more "turns" from their cars because, for example, a given person uses the car to go home, parks the car out front, then the next morning uses it again. If you have to return a Zipcar to its spot all the time, that is much less convenient. There seem to be Car2Go setups in at least Austin, Seattle & Portland.
I come here for the love
I personally think a lot of futurists want a world without private property, and getting rid of personal cars would be a step in that direction.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Human drivers will probably exist on the same roads as autonomous cars for many decades, perhaps even forever. Cars started becoming common at about 1900, and by the early 1910s cars outnumbered horse buggies, but horse buggies were still being used in the 1930s. It will likely be the same with autonomous cars. Even after driverless cars are common, it will probably take at least a couple decades for the majority of cars to not require drivers.
I am on the side of people who just enjoy driving. I miss the mustang I gave up when I had children, and I still refuse to own a sedan with under 250 hp because it would be boring. But just how early cars where that much better than horses, autonomous cars will be too practical to not take over.
Once the home renovations start the change will become even more dramatic. There may not be any use for garages even in suburban homes, as a quick text could get you a car within minutes. Garages may become as common as stables within 50 years.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I am a gear head myself. I really enjoy driving cars that are made to be fun to drive. However I can tell you that as time has marched on I have found routine driving to be increasingly less enjoyable. I despise my commute and do everything I can to take my own driving out of the equation so I can do things that are less aggravating and wasteful of my time and money.
I can definitely see merit to the idea of not owning a car. The only reason why I currently own one now is because I live too far off the bus line to walk there easily in the morning. If I lived in the city instead I would almost certainly not own a car at all.
And don't get me started on the Ponzi scheme that we are all required to contribute to in order to hold a valid driver license.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Because the cost of a taxi is mostly the cost of the driver. Cut that out and taxis become an economically viable replacement for more people.
No one can deny that there are a number of circumstances where taxis are more convenient that having to deal with your own car. Cost and other factors get in the way.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
It would sure cut a lot of commuting if all a person needed to do to get to work was to take the elevator.
Probably would cut out a lot of time off too - "Dave, I know it's your day off, but can you come upstairs real quick to look at this server issue?"
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
The cost of medical care alone will start to severely limit our choices. For example if a robotic driver has 15% less accidents than a human driver the differential in medical loss to tax payers could be enough to cause a must have robotic ability at all times to be required in order to have a vehicle on the road. Guns and motorcycles will face similar legal challenges. For example one severely wounded motorcycle rider can have a lifetime medical care cost of over twenty million dollars and leave the rider with no way to earn any money at all on top of that. A bullet can cause similar nightmare medical situations. Since the tax payer always bears the brunt of the costs of such incidents our law makers may feel they have the right to either control or completley banish long established industries as well as restraining the rights of the people. This is one reason Obama care is a bad compromise. Only single payer medical with government as the payer can control medical costs and it is vital that those costs be controlled.