You're asking a woman with kids to go from "having a car all the time" to "having to schedule a car".
Why? This is a solution in search of a problem. This is not progress or an improvement.
As for the fire engine/police car comment, I have to say that those things are usually not needed, even once a year. In 9 years of living here, we've had to call the police once on a non emergency basis and the paramedics once on an emergency basis.
On the second call, they were here in less than 5 mins, that is darn hard to beat.
Because I live on a continent where CO2 IS charged (as a tax) and investing in solar pays. My calculations were based on â 0.23 per kWh and payback will be after seven years.
Those numbers sound about right to me...
If that was the case here, I'd install solar tomorrow...
At under 11 cents a kWh, it makes zero sense. So really that is the dividing line.
I currently have FIOS from Verizon, I pay $105 a month for 150 megabit down and up.
AT&T this month is in the process of installing their new GigaFiber service.
They are offering 1 gigabit up and down for $120 a month, but with a data cap of 1 TB per month and $20 per additional TB.
We use a lot of data in our house, with a connection speed about 6 times faster, I imagine we'll use even more.
1 TB is a lot, but frankly isn't THAT much when you consider 4k streaming and 1 gigabit to share among 5 tech heavy users.
Verizon currently doesn't have a cap, at least not a published one. If they have a soft or hidden cap, I've never felt or seen it.
---
Then the issue comes up... Do I NEED gigabit? Well, I once would have thought that 150 meg was nuts, and today I love it, so I'm sure I'll find a use for it. But honestly, I'm not sure it is worth the bother.
What I'm hoping is that Verizon will price match, or offer something close. Currently they want something crazy like $300 a month for 500 up/down, if they offered me that for $120, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Even 300/300 would be enough for $120, but time will tell.
I wonder about uber driverless. Without a person, what prevents people from trashing the car?
Nothing, which is why it won't happen...
The idea that you could buy a $40K car and some drunk fool will piss all over the inside is exactly why...
Most people won't do that, but a few will and if it happens to you, your car needs many thousands of dollars in repairs. The whole interior might need to be replaced.
Seems like a fair trade-off, I'm leaving for work at 9:48.... the car's there at 9:48.
Great, until plans change...
There are also a hundred other things to do with a car. I suspect most of you reading this are male and most work.
Try talking to some women about this, who have kids... and a hundred and one different places to go at different times during the week.
My wife needs her own truck, she drives at different times every day and sometimes needs to leave quickly, such as when the school calls due to one of our kids being sick, etc.
The truck needs to be parked outside, all the time, in case she needs it unexpectedly...
If you're in the "you can pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands" camp then fine, be that way, but get the fuck out of the way of progress already.
"Progress", I'm not sure you understand what that word means.
Just because something is "new" doesn't make it better.
If you live in the USA, and you don't live in NY, then it's quaint to not have a car. It makes you a second-class citizen in a broad number of ways, and wastes your time brutally.
^ This, a thousand times this...
I live in the Dallas, TX area. There are about 7 million people in the DFW metroplex, and most of them own cars. Even the poor have cars, it is really, really hard to get anywhere or do anything without one.
The very nearest grocery store would be an hour round trip walk, and I could carry maybe 4-6 bags of stuff, assuming my arms didn't get tired.
There is simply no way to get anywhere without a vehicle.
Why would any of those be a problem with a shared autonomous car?
Because it isn't MY car. My stuff isn't in it, the seat isn't set to my spot, it has a funny smell that someone left in it, someone ate spicy thai and that smell lasts for days, etc.
Autonomous cars? Yes
Shared? Heck no... you underestimate how much people like their stuff.
Why would I send my car back home to sit idle when it could make a profit for me by signing into Uber's network? Even if it only makes $30 in a day, I could have it drive to a car wash and get the seats wiped and vacuumed for half that before picking me up.
You probably could...
Assuming you have no pride of ownership in your car and you don't care how it is treated by random strangers...
I like my truck because no one sits in it but me. No one eats in it, no one puts their muddy feet in it, no one has their kids picking their nose and wiping it on the doors, etc.
My truck is in beautiful condition, inside and out. A proper detail can get most cars back into that condition, but a proper detail takes 2-3 hours and costs $120 to do, and even then, it'll never get some things out.
Regardless of the "fine" for smoking in the car, what happens when someone smokes in yours? It is REALLY, REALLY hard to get that smell out, it really is never the same again.
I think the OP's point is that the computer knows when the stoplights will be, well in advance, and can adjust the vehicle speed to never arrive at the stoplight when it will be red.
You can't do this, not really, you lack enough information, far enough in advance, and the ability to do the math required that says, "ok, for the next 5/8 of a mile, drive 37 mph to avoid the next red light".
Why such animosity? You obviously will be able to own your own car if you want to. It may be more expensive to own a car, or especially to find a house that hasn't converted their garage to other living space, but you can still own one. Why do you care so much if 90% of people find they don't need to own a car anymore? Are you upset that no one owns their own horse anymore, and that it is more expensive now to own one than it was is 1850?
I'm not the poster you replied to, but I'll toss a thought in.
The only reason our cars cost what they do for as much as they cost to develop, is due to the millions and millions of them sold.
It often costs a billion dollars to bring a new car model to market, and that is for an established company that already knows how to do it.
If they sell 75% fewer cars because most people share them, the price will go up. Nothing is really gained in that process.
Oh sure, your "net cost to you" won't change much, your old car payment was $400 a month, now your new "car rental sharing auto driving thing" is $400 a month and you get a car that you have to share with 4 other people.
That isn't progress in a lot of people's minds.
The cars will still cost a billion dollars to develop, but with people sharing, you won't need nearly as many, so that cost has to be spread over far fewer cars sold.
---
Let me put it another way. Your average $20K car? Costs less than $10k to actually build. The rest is marketing, dealer support, R&D, profit, etc. Build 75% fewer cars and the price has to at least double.
Car ownership will become a frivolous luxury for the rich. Everyone else will just subscribe to a car service at their desired level of luxury.
What, like leasing is today?
The majority of new cars "sold" are leased... at least the nicer ones are (I read somewhere that 80% of all new BMWs are leased).
The thing is, most cars on the road are NOT leased, they are older cars owned by people who had $5K total to buy the car outright.
And frankly, people don't generally buy cars and hold them 20 years. It happens, my father did it, owned his 1984 Caddy for 26 years, but that is very rare.
Even more parking can be saved if you seat more than one person in the cab of course. I bet we will see cabs with multiple entirely separated passenger cabins so the only inconvenience from sharing them is the possible detour for the other person.
Humans are not robots or computers that you can "optimize". Human nature is not going to change nearly as fast as the tech will.
I don't think the above is likely to happen anytime soon.
It is also worth noting that from a financial point of view, a lot of homeowners should rent. Owning a house only makes sense for a part of the population. Those who move often or who lack reserves for repairs should be renting.
Many of them own. Why? Many reasons, which also will keep people owning cars even if it would be cheaper not to.
So, the trillions of taxpayer dollars we've spent on wars to protect energy interests just don't count? The hundreds of thousands of lives that were spent in these wars, counting the civilian casualities?
One could debate the purpose of those wars, you seem to think it is set in stone to your view.
The strategic interests of the US are worth going to war over, and right now, oil is one of those. It wasn't the only reason, after all, oil was already flowing, it isn't like we went to war because it stopped.
If solar was what 95% of our cars ran on and the import of solar panels was cut off, we'd probably go to war over that too.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point of course...
You're asking a woman with kids to go from "having a car all the time" to "having to schedule a car".
Why? This is a solution in search of a problem. This is not progress or an improvement.
As for the fire engine/police car comment, I have to say that those things are usually not needed, even once a year. In 9 years of living here, we've had to call the police once on a non emergency basis and the paramedics once on an emergency basis.
On the second call, they were here in less than 5 mins, that is darn hard to beat.
All I could think when reading your post was...
"Gosh, look what happens when we have real competition!"
Sweet, isn't it? :)
If you could get 1 Mbps for $10, 5 Mbps for $15, 20 Mbps for $20, 100 Mbps for $40 or 1,000 Mbps for $80, which would you pick?
You didn't ask me, but I'd take the 100 meg for $40.
I don't think right now I have enough use or need for 1 gig to justify twice the price.
If AT&T had no cap and was 1 gigabit for $120, I'd jump all over that like white on rice. $105 for 150 meg vs. $120 for 1 gig? That is easy.
But what if AT&T said 1 gig w/ no cap for $210? Naa, I'd pass.
Because I live on a continent where CO2 IS charged (as a tax) and investing in solar pays.
My calculations were based on â 0.23 per kWh and payback will be after seven years.
Those numbers sound about right to me...
If that was the case here, I'd install solar tomorrow...
At under 11 cents a kWh, it makes zero sense. So really that is the dividing line.
I currently have FIOS from Verizon, I pay $105 a month for 150 megabit down and up.
AT&T this month is in the process of installing their new GigaFiber service.
They are offering 1 gigabit up and down for $120 a month, but with a data cap of 1 TB per month and $20 per additional TB.
We use a lot of data in our house, with a connection speed about 6 times faster, I imagine we'll use even more.
1 TB is a lot, but frankly isn't THAT much when you consider 4k streaming and 1 gigabit to share among 5 tech heavy users.
Verizon currently doesn't have a cap, at least not a published one. If they have a soft or hidden cap, I've never felt or seen it.
---
Then the issue comes up... Do I NEED gigabit? Well, I once would have thought that 150 meg was nuts, and today I love it, so I'm sure I'll find a use for it. But honestly, I'm not sure it is worth the bother.
What I'm hoping is that Verizon will price match, or offer something close. Currently they want something crazy like $300 a month for 500 up/down, if they offered me that for $120, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
Even 300/300 would be enough for $120, but time will tell.
Most people don't care that much about their vehicle
Source?
most people won't shit up a vehicle if they know they're under surveillance and so on.
It only takes once.
So for most people, this ought to be a viable option.
I don't agree, but time will tell.
In England, detached houses are comparatively rare. Human nature seems to cope.
Yes, but that is because they are used to being serfs...
Some of us know better...
Or are you suggesting that a return to serfdom is a good thing?
That's software, digital goods. Is there anything out there right now that is physical that people only rent with no option to buy?
The Saturn EV-1 was one, it was only leased, not sold, and the terms didn't allow for a purchase at the end.
Many people wanted to keep them, willing to pay money and sign waivers, anything...
Nope, the cars were all taken away and crushed, because... well, GM was scared and didn't know what to do with it...
Probably the fact that they have their credit card information.
That is not as useful as you think it is...
Someone with a $200 credit limit and who has no real money, is judgement proof...
I wonder about uber driverless. Without a person, what prevents people from trashing the car?
Nothing, which is why it won't happen...
The idea that you could buy a $40K car and some drunk fool will piss all over the inside is exactly why...
Most people won't do that, but a few will and if it happens to you, your car needs many thousands of dollars in repairs. The whole interior might need to be replaced.
The same thing that prevents people trashing buses, or train carriages. Most people simply don't.
No, most people don't... but enough do to make it a concern, and when it is YOUR car, you'll care.
More than the train/bus, there's probably a record of exactly who hired the car, and before/during/after CCTV pictures can be recorded.
Judgement proof... learn it, embrace it... :)
Seems like a fair trade-off, I'm leaving for work at 9:48.... the car's there at 9:48.
Great, until plans change...
There are also a hundred other things to do with a car. I suspect most of you reading this are male and most work.
Try talking to some women about this, who have kids... and a hundred and one different places to go at different times during the week.
My wife needs her own truck, she drives at different times every day and sometimes needs to leave quickly, such as when the school calls due to one of our kids being sick, etc.
The truck needs to be parked outside, all the time, in case she needs it unexpectedly...
If you're in the "you can pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands" camp then fine, be that way, but get the fuck out of the way of progress already.
"Progress", I'm not sure you understand what that word means.
Just because something is "new" doesn't make it better.
If you live in the USA, and you don't live in NY, then it's quaint to not have a car. It makes you a second-class citizen in a broad number of ways, and wastes your time brutally.
^ This, a thousand times this...
I live in the Dallas, TX area. There are about 7 million people in the DFW metroplex, and most of them own cars. Even the poor have cars, it is really, really hard to get anywhere or do anything without one.
The very nearest grocery store would be an hour round trip walk, and I could carry maybe 4-6 bags of stuff, assuming my arms didn't get tired.
There is simply no way to get anywhere without a vehicle.
You can never really get some messes out of carpet... there are times that replacing the carpet is the only option...
How about people having sex in your car? Doing drugs in your car?
Why would any of those be a problem with a shared autonomous car?
Because it isn't MY car. My stuff isn't in it, the seat isn't set to my spot, it has a funny smell that someone left in it, someone ate spicy thai and that smell lasts for days, etc.
Autonomous cars? Yes
Shared? Heck no... you underestimate how much people like their stuff.
Why would I send my car back home to sit idle when it could make a profit for me by signing into Uber's network? Even if it only makes $30 in a day, I could have it drive to a car wash and get the seats wiped and vacuumed for half that before picking me up.
You probably could...
Assuming you have no pride of ownership in your car and you don't care how it is treated by random strangers...
I like my truck because no one sits in it but me. No one eats in it, no one puts their muddy feet in it, no one has their kids picking their nose and wiping it on the doors, etc.
My truck is in beautiful condition, inside and out. A proper detail can get most cars back into that condition, but a proper detail takes 2-3 hours and costs $120 to do, and even then, it'll never get some things out.
Regardless of the "fine" for smoking in the car, what happens when someone smokes in yours? It is REALLY, REALLY hard to get that smell out, it really is never the same again.
Yea thanks, I don't need the $30 that badly...
I think the OP's point is that the computer knows when the stoplights will be, well in advance, and can adjust the vehicle speed to never arrive at the stoplight when it will be red.
You can't do this, not really, you lack enough information, far enough in advance, and the ability to do the math required that says, "ok, for the next 5/8 of a mile, drive 37 mph to avoid the next red light".
Why such animosity? You obviously will be able to own your own car if you want to. It may be more expensive to own a car, or especially to find a house that hasn't converted their garage to other living space, but you can still own one. Why do you care so much if 90% of people find they don't need to own a car anymore? Are you upset that no one owns their own horse anymore, and that it is more expensive now to own one than it was is 1850?
I'm not the poster you replied to, but I'll toss a thought in.
The only reason our cars cost what they do for as much as they cost to develop, is due to the millions and millions of them sold.
It often costs a billion dollars to bring a new car model to market, and that is for an established company that already knows how to do it.
If they sell 75% fewer cars because most people share them, the price will go up. Nothing is really gained in that process.
Oh sure, your "net cost to you" won't change much, your old car payment was $400 a month, now your new "car rental sharing auto driving thing" is $400 a month and you get a car that you have to share with 4 other people.
That isn't progress in a lot of people's minds.
The cars will still cost a billion dollars to develop, but with people sharing, you won't need nearly as many, so that cost has to be spread over far fewer cars sold.
---
Let me put it another way. Your average $20K car? Costs less than $10k to actually build. The rest is marketing, dealer support, R&D, profit, etc. Build 75% fewer cars and the price has to at least double.
Car ownership will become a frivolous luxury for the rich. Everyone else will just subscribe to a car service at their desired level of luxury.
What, like leasing is today?
The majority of new cars "sold" are leased... at least the nicer ones are (I read somewhere that 80% of all new BMWs are leased).
The thing is, most cars on the road are NOT leased, they are older cars owned by people who had $5K total to buy the car outright.
And frankly, people don't generally buy cars and hold them 20 years. It happens, my father did it, owned his 1984 Caddy for 26 years, but that is very rare.
Even more parking can be saved if you seat more than one person in the cab of course. I bet we will see cabs with multiple entirely separated passenger cabins so the only inconvenience from sharing them is the possible detour for the other person.
Humans are not robots or computers that you can "optimize". Human nature is not going to change nearly as fast as the tech will.
I don't think the above is likely to happen anytime soon.
The other poster made a good point...
It is also worth noting that from a financial point of view, a lot of homeowners should rent. Owning a house only makes sense for a part of the population. Those who move often or who lack reserves for repairs should be renting.
Many of them own. Why? Many reasons, which also will keep people owning cars even if it would be cheaper not to.
Normally with a UID that low, I'd expect a sound and reasoned argument.
I guess it goes to show that just because you've been here awhile doesn't mean you have any sense.
Have a nice day.
So, the trillions of taxpayer dollars we've spent on wars to protect energy interests just don't count? The hundreds of thousands of lives that were spent in these wars, counting the civilian casualities?
One could debate the purpose of those wars, you seem to think it is set in stone to your view.
The strategic interests of the US are worth going to war over, and right now, oil is one of those. It wasn't the only reason, after all, oil was already flowing, it isn't like we went to war because it stopped.
If solar was what 95% of our cars ran on and the import of solar panels was cut off, we'd probably go to war over that too.
Nonsense, coal isn't clean, you are the one who suggested it was, so you're the one who has to prove it.