But Uber and Lyft will need to own the cars if they convert to autonomous driving. Very few people are going to want others using their $60K cars unattended. They will be puked and pissed in.
They have to actually communicate and plan to set a price for it to be collusion. Seeing the price of the gas station across the street from you is 1.00 and deciding to charge 1.00 yourself is not collusion, yet it ends up having the same effect on consumers. Businesses are rarely ever willing to start a price war.
You're making a rather large assumption that a self driving car will ever work using technology that can be easily mass produced. Since there is no sensor array that works in all weather and all situations yet, and we don't seem to have the technology available yet, you're being a bit premature in comparing it to a washing machine.
Right but still no indication that Uber and Lyft will be any cheaper than a taxi once that point is reached. Right now they don't have to invest in a vehicle at all, so the peak times problem works out for them. All they have to do is offer people more money to drive during peak times and they are willing to volunteer their cars. In off-peak times they go back to making their own cars their own. If Uber and Lyft have a fleet of autonomous driving cars, they have the problem of supplying enough cars to supply for peak but what do they do in non-peak? 85% of their cars are idle.
People keep saying EVs are cheaper to make, but then why are they always more expensive before government subsidies? I might be able to consider buying one of these less convenient cars if they actually had a cheaper sticker price.
Anyway it doesn't matter, because I have control who I give my car to. That is all that matters. With an autonomous car, not only do I not have control, but everyone is driving around with the same driver I am. If I lend my car to someone, they have the same driver I and a thousand others do. Every car is at the same risk because every car has the same driver. Why should some be paying more for their insurance for others? Because they triggered some bug what caused it to not notice a cyclist? That is rediculous, because with the same code in every car, it has an equal chance of happening to everyone who owns that car.
Why? if I lend my car to someone, and they get in an accident, then the accident is their fault and goes against their insurance and driving record not mine. Why is this suddenly different for an autonomous car?
But who are you renting from? It has to be from someone with the capability and capacity to have a car ready just when you need it; even at peak times. It has to be someone who can afford to license autonomous driving for commercial use. So out of the few companies you will be able to rent from, why would they not charge as much as they can for the service unless they have some deficiency that makes their product worth less than the other companies doing it?
Also, when you consider the number of cars needed at rush hour to satisfy capacity versus number of cars needed the rest of the day, I wonder how utilized every car will end up being anyway. The alternative is to not have enough cars available for peak times in an effort to keep every car 100% utilized. In this case getting a ride during times of shortages (when you need to go to work) gets very expensive.
You think obtaining an autonomous car fleet with a mother ship to talk to for coordination is going to have a small barrier to entry? Is there any indication that individuals will ever have access to a self driving car? Or will the technology just be hoarded by companies large enough to put it in a fleet?
I think it is fair to say that most technical leaders of our time don't really understand anything about people in general. Oh they know how to make a buck off of them, but beyond that they are very out of touch.
Uber and Lyft are only cheaper than taxis right now because they clearly want taxis out of business, and aren't following the same regulations that cost money. It is currently unclear whether Uber and Lyft will be able to ignore regulations permanently. I doubt it, seeing as they are already getting booted out of London for that reason. In some cities in Canada, taxi drivers are demanding that they be compensated for their investment in their taxi licenses if Uber be allowed in. And rightfully so, they have their life savings in those licenses which will go from a value of $200K each to being worth nothing if other driving services don't have to uphold the same standards.
Because there is no price competition currently with taxis for good reason. It keeps the number of cars on the road down, thus usage down for the sake of the other people using the roads. Such regulations will be more important with self driving services. Since the roads can only hold so many cars, there is no benefit to be gained by selling such services in bulk. Plus I'm not really sure if that kind of price competition really ever happens in a substantial way. I would once say technology was the one area where prices were dropping, but the $1K iPhone seems to mark the end of that as well. While not colluding, companies tend to charge as much as they can given the quality of their product with respect to the other products and obviously want upward pressure on their prices. I haven't seen the price of large appliances go down over the last 10 years, despite the massive advantages companies now have in terms of automation and cheap labor. Prices for services tend to follow the same trend.
Autonomous cars on a course to put taxi's and real drivers out of business, then charge everyone taxi prices to go anywhere. Maybe more, depending whether you are going to an affluent area. The future seems to suck.
Except the last time I played a 3D game, there were a LOT of 3d objects passing through solid objects if you look very close. In a 3d world it's easy to get around that by making the set path of the moving object be the absolute guide. Not so easy in the real world.
Over here we need personal vehicles. Any kind of public transit we have is terrible. Furthermore I live somewhere very cold with snow, where accidents from self driving cars are far more likely. I don't care who pays the insurance, but I am a passenger in this scenario, not the driver. I'm not willing to be held liable for a coding or sensor error any more than I would be liable if I were in a bus or a taxi. The cost of liability should be borne on the automaker. I will pay to insure against destruction of the property so if there is a fire or vandalism I get a replacement, but since I have no control to avoid accidents it is illogical to have me pay for them when they happen. I do expect to be compensated when they happen however.
They already know what most of the signs say in the entire country.
Clearly you don't live where I live. There is a *major* intersection in my city where the GPS in my car doesn't even know you can turn left there. I don't know who updates these things and what motivation is given for them up update it, but clearly it isn't working where I live.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that most people need the cars during rush hour. That's why it is rush hour.
But Uber and Lyft will need to own the cars if they convert to autonomous driving. Very few people are going to want others using their $60K cars unattended. They will be puked and pissed in.
They have to actually communicate and plan to set a price for it to be collusion. Seeing the price of the gas station across the street from you is 1.00 and deciding to charge 1.00 yourself is not collusion, yet it ends up having the same effect on consumers. Businesses are rarely ever willing to start a price war.
In fact, that is often a substitute FOR understanding people.
You're making a rather large assumption that a self driving car will ever work using technology that can be easily mass produced. Since there is no sensor array that works in all weather and all situations yet, and we don't seem to have the technology available yet, you're being a bit premature in comparing it to a washing machine.
Right but still no indication that Uber and Lyft will be any cheaper than a taxi once that point is reached. Right now they don't have to invest in a vehicle at all, so the peak times problem works out for them. All they have to do is offer people more money to drive during peak times and they are willing to volunteer their cars. In off-peak times they go back to making their own cars their own. If Uber and Lyft have a fleet of autonomous driving cars, they have the problem of supplying enough cars to supply for peak but what do they do in non-peak? 85% of their cars are idle.
You're assuming automated cars will ever be as good as a human, in any type of weather.
People keep saying EVs are cheaper to make, but then why are they always more expensive before government subsidies? I might be able to consider buying one of these less convenient cars if they actually had a cheaper sticker price.
Is there going to be an initiative to build fast charging stations at some point that aren't proprietary?
Anyway it doesn't matter, because I have control who I give my car to. That is all that matters. With an autonomous car, not only do I not have control, but everyone is driving around with the same driver I am. If I lend my car to someone, they have the same driver I and a thousand others do. Every car is at the same risk because every car has the same driver. Why should some be paying more for their insurance for others? Because they triggered some bug what caused it to not notice a cyclist? That is rediculous, because with the same code in every car, it has an equal chance of happening to everyone who owns that car.
All I said is that they don't understand people. The fact that they give money doesn't mean they understand people.
Why? if I lend my car to someone, and they get in an accident, then the accident is their fault and goes against their insurance and driving record not mine. Why is this suddenly different for an autonomous car?
But who are you renting from? It has to be from someone with the capability and capacity to have a car ready just when you need it; even at peak times. It has to be someone who can afford to license autonomous driving for commercial use. So out of the few companies you will be able to rent from, why would they not charge as much as they can for the service unless they have some deficiency that makes their product worth less than the other companies doing it?
Also, when you consider the number of cars needed at rush hour to satisfy capacity versus number of cars needed the rest of the day, I wonder how utilized every car will end up being anyway. The alternative is to not have enough cars available for peak times in an effort to keep every car 100% utilized. In this case getting a ride during times of shortages (when you need to go to work) gets very expensive.
You're right it's not collusion, yet the effect is the same.
You think obtaining an autonomous car fleet with a mother ship to talk to for coordination is going to have a small barrier to entry? Is there any indication that individuals will ever have access to a self driving car? Or will the technology just be hoarded by companies large enough to put it in a fleet?
I think it is fair to say that most technical leaders of our time don't really understand anything about people in general. Oh they know how to make a buck off of them, but beyond that they are very out of touch.
Uber and Lyft are only cheaper than taxis right now because they clearly want taxis out of business, and aren't following the same regulations that cost money. It is currently unclear whether Uber and Lyft will be able to ignore regulations permanently. I doubt it, seeing as they are already getting booted out of London for that reason. In some cities in Canada, taxi drivers are demanding that they be compensated for their investment in their taxi licenses if Uber be allowed in. And rightfully so, they have their life savings in those licenses which will go from a value of $200K each to being worth nothing if other driving services don't have to uphold the same standards.
Because there is no price competition currently with taxis for good reason. It keeps the number of cars on the road down, thus usage down for the sake of the other people using the roads. Such regulations will be more important with self driving services. Since the roads can only hold so many cars, there is no benefit to be gained by selling such services in bulk. Plus I'm not really sure if that kind of price competition really ever happens in a substantial way. I would once say technology was the one area where prices were dropping, but the $1K iPhone seems to mark the end of that as well. While not colluding, companies tend to charge as much as they can given the quality of their product with respect to the other products and obviously want upward pressure on their prices. I haven't seen the price of large appliances go down over the last 10 years, despite the massive advantages companies now have in terms of automation and cheap labor. Prices for services tend to follow the same trend.
Autonomous cars on a course to put taxi's and real drivers out of business, then charge everyone taxi prices to go anywhere. Maybe more, depending whether you are going to an affluent area. The future seems to suck.
Except the last time I played a 3D game, there were a LOT of 3d objects passing through solid objects if you look very close. In a 3d world it's easy to get around that by making the set path of the moving object be the absolute guide. Not so easy in the real world.
Over here we need personal vehicles. Any kind of public transit we have is terrible. Furthermore I live somewhere very cold with snow, where accidents from self driving cars are far more likely. I don't care who pays the insurance, but I am a passenger in this scenario, not the driver. I'm not willing to be held liable for a coding or sensor error any more than I would be liable if I were in a bus or a taxi. The cost of liability should be borne on the automaker. I will pay to insure against destruction of the property so if there is a fire or vandalism I get a replacement, but since I have no control to avoid accidents it is illogical to have me pay for them when they happen. I do expect to be compensated when they happen however.
They already know what most of the signs say in the entire country.
Clearly you don't live where I live. There is a *major* intersection in my city where the GPS in my car doesn't even know you can turn left there. I don't know who updates these things and what motivation is given for them up update it, but clearly it isn't working where I live.
When they pay money for the service of being driven by automation, they will think much differently.
So your car's software decides to steer into a building and you are powerless to stop it, and YOU take the financial hit? I don't think so!
But with human insurance, the human responsible pays for it in terms of higher premiums. Whose premiums go up in the self driving car scenario?