Slashdot Mirror


How Much Americans Could Save by Ridesharing Driverless Cars Over Owning

An anonymous reader shares a study: Self-driving cars promise safer roads, less traffic and increased mobility. Some autonomous vehicle proponents also maintain they will save time and money. But will they really save Americans time and money? And even if they do, are Americans ready to give up driving? Online insurer Esurance surveyed consumers, analyzed trends, and spoke to experts to find out. "Like with most new technology, we'll see consumer perceptions evolve and adoption accelerate as the promised benefits of self-driving cars are realized," said Haden Kirkpatrick, head of strategy and innovation at Esurance.

The reality is that the first fully autonomous cars will be very pricey and beyond the reach of most Americans. Manufacturers expect the early buyers will be businesses and the very wealthy. One developer says prices won't start coming down enough for most families and individuals to buy them until 2025 or beyond. Until the price of ownership of self-driving vehicles comes down, most people will experience driverless vehicles through ridesharing, according to researchers. According to Esurance research, in the best-case scenario, a family that gives up its car in favor of driverless ridesharing could save $4,100 in annual transportation costs. Other research confirms that a 20 percent improvement in efficiencies of the personal transportation system, would generate a five percent increase in household incomes.

11 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading title... by cre1mer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How Much Americans Could Save by Taking Public Transit

    FTFY - If you live in city with a robust transit system, you can live without owning a car.

    1. Re:Misleading title... by cre1mer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live in Silicon Valley. My commute is two local buses and an express bus to go one hour each way from San Jose to Palo Alto (36 miles). If I was to do that by car, morning commute would be 30 to 60 minutes and afternoon commute would be 45 to 90 minutes. Many of my coworkers take Caltrain from San Francisco or San Jose and a local bus, or the Dumbarton Express bus from from BART station in Union City (across the bay). You have to be nuts to drive a car through Palo Alto during commute hours.

  2. Re:Way ahead of you... by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's great when everything is going smoothly. What about when a hurricane comes and blows the town down? Ridesharing options will vanish, and no I don't want to be waiting for a bus out from a city eager to decimate its indigent population. I'll stick to having my own vehicle TYVM.

  3. Re:Way ahead of you... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, for you the calculation is quite simple. For others, it's not so simple. For instance, most of my usage is at peak commuting hours - an Uber currently costs me around $10-12 each way. 5 days a week 48 weeks per year this is around $8000. My van cost around $27000 and I'll get at least 10 years out of it, so my annualized capital cost is around $3000 (including interest payments). Annual maintenance averages around $1000 or less per year. Fuel costs are under $2000 per year. Insurance is another $1500. So for just my commute I'd be looking at almost break-even: $8000 vs around $7500.

    BUT, I have kids. They need to be ferried to sports, before-school activities, certain friends' houses, etc. The kids blow the calculations out of the water. Kids are expensive. Then add in weekend travel and shopping/grocery trips and it isn't even close.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Dodgy math built on broken foundations by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This seemed pretty wacky, so I looked at the actual "study". It's a fluff piece with no grounding in reality.

    The first major assumption is that a family pays $500/month to lease a car every month. Most sensible families have a $30k car paid off in 5 years and drive it another 5.

    A second major assumption is that the cost of ride sharing currently covers the full purchase price, maintenance, and depreciation of the driver's vehicle. I do not know that this is the case.

    So if you ignore the cost of owning the ride share car, and you inflate the cost of owning a car, it's cheaper to ride share!

    Fucking genius!

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:Dodgy math built on broken foundations by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ahem...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  5. Re:Way ahead of you... by magarity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You've got the money part covered but notice the headline includes saving time. This is the real comedy; waiting around for a ride share is supposed to save time somehow?

  6. Answer it: it depends [Re:Way ahead of you...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only need a car once or twice a year, so I just rent one. Seems pointless to own a car.

    Well, for you the calculation is quite simple. For others, it's not so simple.

    Exactly. The value of owning a car varies tremendously depending on where you live and what you do, and the value of owning a self-driving car will vary even more.

    Having a car that can drive by itself will make it a lot more valuable in some locations. I would really find it valuable to have a car that can drop me off and then go park itself, and then come pick me up when I need it again.

    So I'm not at all sure that people will buy fewer cars if the cars are autonomous. I'll say that the cars will be more valuable, at least to people who travel a lot to places where parking is hard to find, and hence a new segment of people who previous didn't want to own a car will now want one.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re: Answer it: it depends [Re:Way ahead of you...] by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is all science fiction: speculating what the future will be like based on technology that doesn't exist yet.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. Not as much as you think by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a European where the public transport is availabl to go to and from work fatsre than I could drive and that trip is paid 100% by the company, I do have car sharing.

    They advertise that if your drive less than 15.000 KM per year, car sharing is cheaper. However you do need to have a car nearby available and it take some planning.

    Most people will not be willing to walk 5 minutes and plan it in advance. And if you trive 14.550 KM per year, the gain is so small that it is not worth it.

    So what it can be is a great alternative to a second car for many people. e.g. at leats one person goes to work with public transport and the other might as well. Just sometimes you will need a second car because reasons. Why have a car that is standing there costing money all the time.

    Having a self driving car that comes to you would lower the treshhold of the 5 minute walk and make it even possible for those who would have to walk more, It would increase the availaility as well.

    As extra information: I mainly use it to do shopping one per week. This months monthly bill was 75EUR and that inclused insurance, fuel, miles and the rent. That was abit on the high side as I normaly pay around 30 EUR per month. I also have paid 150EUR a month when I did a trip.

    I save on average 250 EUR per month comparing of when I had a car.

    And all this is in Europe where not having a car is not a real issue. I know many peope who do not have one. I also know people who have one, yet do not need it.

    Before I sold my car, I tried it for two months to be absolutely sure that it was the right choce. http://www.cambio.be/ if you live in Belgium and want to get more info.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Re:Yeah, right. by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, right. Increasing efficiency no longer gets passed on to employee incomes, it just gets captured as profit by the 1%.

    I suspect what they meant to say was that once the household no longer had to pay to purchase/insure/maintain/refuel one or more automobiles, that household's net savings would be equivalent to receiving a 5% increase in income.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.