3 ms·

Many people have talked over the years about self-driving cars dropping people off and heading home. Have they? I've just seen references to cars finding nearb

Many people have talked over the years about self-driving cars dropping people off and heading home. Have they? I've just seen references to cars finding nearby charging stations, not just driving themselves all the way home. Either way, I think the more likely prospect is that people stop outright owning cars at that point. Why invest in a complete vehicle when you can just pay for a service that has a car pick you up whenever you need a ride?

greggyb 11y ago
For the same reason some people invest in a whole kitchen, despite the fact that they can pay for a service that has food show up in front of them whenever they're hungry. Some people like to own their own things. Some people like to do things themselves. There will always be locations where there is not enough population density to ensure wait times will be <5 minutes for a ride at all times. There's no reason to expect that self-driving cars will instantly dominate the market once we get to some sort of tipping point. Certainly they will allow for new paradigms in transportation, and they will shift "manual"[0] cars into a less dominant position in the market. Keep in mind that not everyone shares your preferences. [0] It is interesting that we already have manual and automatic cars. How will we readily distinguish these? Additionally, I'd imagine that there is a large venn diagram overlap between drivers who prefer stick shift and who will prefer to drive their own vehicle.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  Don't ignore developing markets. The USA has plenty of roads to waste, but Beijing and Bangalore don't. You'll see self driving cars be first mandated in cities with serious infrastructure problems as a way to completely optimize traffic (e.g. No manual cars on the express ways). Then local western governments will see a chance to cut their own budgets, as an easy way to satisfy the anti-tax attitudes of those people who ironically would prefer to drive their own cars.
  - greggyb 11y ago
    I think your post goes to support my point that there is great diversity in markets, and we can't expect a single individual's experience or preference to accurately represent such. > the anti-tax attitudes of those people who ironically would prefer to drive their own cars. I am curious as to why you think that there would be such a large crossover between those who would prefer to have a "manual" car, and those who have anti-tax attitudes?
    - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
      Because self-driving cars are socialist to an extreme. The real benefit of them is not to free the human of the tedious task of driving, but to take the human out of the traffic system so it can be optimized for the greater good. The same could be said about taxes: they sacrifice individual wealth for the greater good. There will necessarily be a lot of resistance to self driving cars...people like driving! But they are quite inevitable, not necause people will "prefer" them but for totally societal economic reasons. And that is why your argument doesn't make sense to me, it's as if we will have any choice about it, when the current system is so messed up and under funded that it's obvious we won't.
      - greggyb 11y ago
        There's no reason to expect "enjoys the experience of driving" and "is opposed to taxation" are descriptions of an individual that must be found exclusively together. That's the issue I take with your original statement. I also see no reason to expect that it is inevitable that self-driving cars become mandatory globally, but that is a different point entirely and not one I'm interested in pursuing right now.
        seanmcdirmid 11y ago
        Taxation is the redistribution of wealth to benefit society as a whole. Self-driving cars is about taking away the task of driving from humans, which is really a privilege, for the benefit of infrastructure optimization. If you believe in retaining personal wealth, you probably believe in retaining your driving privileges as well. > I also see no reason to expect that it is inevitable that self-driving cars become mandatory globally, but that is a different point entirely and not one I'm interested in pursuing right now. Your premise is just completely flawed: you see self-driving cars as providing the benefit of freeing humans from the tedium of driving themselves, when in reality they are more about optimizing limited infrastructure. The former is a "nice to have but not necessary" benefit, the latter basically drastically reduces the amount of resources needed to maintain a city, it is a serious economic benefit that will be very hard to ignore. Of course, your city could allow for manual driving, but at great cost in needing more roads and such, it would be a serious tax burden on your residents (and rich countries can afford it now, but will they be able to afford it as populations double, triple, and space becomes much more limited?). So your premise is flawed, you are attacking the wrong thing.

greggyb 11y ago

For the same reason some people invest in a whole kitchen, despite the fact that they can pay for a service that has food show up in front of them whenever they're hungry. Some people like to own their own things. Some people like to do things themselves. There will always be locations where there is not enough population density to ensure wait times will be <5 minutes for a ride at all times. There's no reason to expect that self-driving cars will instantly dominate the market once we get to some sort of tipping point. Certainly they will allow for new paradigms in transportation, and they will shift "manual"[0] cars into a less dominant position in the market. Keep in mind that not everyone shares your preferences. [0] It is interesting that we already have manual and automatic cars. How will we readily distinguish these? Additionally, I'd imagine that there is a large venn diagram overlap between drivers who prefer stick shift and who will prefer to drive their own vehicle.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
Don't ignore developing markets. The USA has plenty of roads to waste, but Beijing and Bangalore don't. You'll see self driving cars be first mandated in cities with serious infrastructure problems as a way to completely optimize traffic (e.g. No manual cars on the express ways). Then local western governments will see a chance to cut their own budgets, as an easy way to satisfy the anti-tax attitudes of those people who ironically would prefer to drive their own cars.
- greggyb 11y ago
  I think your post goes to support my point that there is great diversity in markets, and we can't expect a single individual's experience or preference to accurately represent such. > the anti-tax attitudes of those people who ironically would prefer to drive their own cars. I am curious as to why you think that there would be such a large crossover between those who would prefer to have a "manual" car, and those who have anti-tax attitudes?
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    Because self-driving cars are socialist to an extreme. The real benefit of them is not to free the human of the tedious task of driving, but to take the human out of the traffic system so it can be optimized for the greater good. The same could be said about taxes: they sacrifice individual wealth for the greater good. There will necessarily be a lot of resistance to self driving cars...people like driving! But they are quite inevitable, not necause people will "prefer" them but for totally societal economic reasons. And that is why your argument doesn't make sense to me, it's as if we will have any choice about it, when the current system is so messed up and under funded that it's obvious we won't.
    - greggyb 11y ago
      There's no reason to expect "enjoys the experience of driving" and "is opposed to taxation" are descriptions of an individual that must be found exclusively together. That's the issue I take with your original statement. I also see no reason to expect that it is inevitable that self-driving cars become mandatory globally, but that is a different point entirely and not one I'm interested in pursuing right now.
      - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
        Taxation is the redistribution of wealth to benefit society as a whole. Self-driving cars is about taking away the task of driving from humans, which is really a privilege, for the benefit of infrastructure optimization. If you believe in retaining personal wealth, you probably believe in retaining your driving privileges as well. > I also see no reason to expect that it is inevitable that self-driving cars become mandatory globally, but that is a different point entirely and not one I'm interested in pursuing right now. Your premise is just completely flawed: you see self-driving cars as providing the benefit of freeing humans from the tedium of driving themselves, when in reality they are more about optimizing limited infrastructure. The former is a "nice to have but not necessary" benefit, the latter basically drastically reduces the amount of resources needed to maintain a city, it is a serious economic benefit that will be very hard to ignore. Of course, your city could allow for manual driving, but at great cost in needing more roads and such, it would be a serious tax burden on your residents (and rich countries can afford it now, but will they be able to afford it as populations double, triple, and space becomes much more limited?). So your premise is flawed, you are attacking the wrong thing.