5 ms·

While this is a hell of a lot better than the current system of non-electric, I feel that people owning their own car won't be a thing after cars are self drivi

While this is a hell of a lot better than the current system of non-electric, I feel that people owning their own car won't be a thing after cars are self driving. After they are, I think people will just call for a car and it would drive to you and pick you up. Obviously this won't work for rural and off road areas, though.

smorrow 10y ago
> I feel that people owning their own car won't be a thing Why is this such a big fantasy among leftists?
- tf2manu994 10y ago
  Not really a fantasy. I would prefer to own my own, but I can see why people argue that it won't be a thing. I find it inconvenient as hell to not own one, though.
- nbevans 10y ago
  I'm not a lefty (somewhat the opposite in fact!) but I would love this "fantasy" to be true. Self driving cars is literally a panacea right now, but hopefully it is achievable in my life time.
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  I don't think it's a leftist fantasy. It's a Silicon Valley fantasy. Us leftists are generally public transit advocates.
  - makomk 10y ago
    It's also a libertarian fantasy - the efficient unregulated, private-sector capitalism of self-driving Ubers displacing the wasteful lefty socialism of public transport, that kind of thing.
- mpg33 10y ago
  Even if you're not a leftist you can see there would be a much higher efficiency of people only having a car when needed. You only have to look at driveways and parking lots to see how inefficient car use is currently.
  - Someone 10y ago
    You only have to look inside those cars to see how that will not happen for those who can afford self-driving cars (most people, if the utopian predictions hold true). Most cars are extensions of one's home and are used to store all kinds of stuff (kid's seats, sunglasses, umbrellas, charging cables, tents in the back trunk, etc.) On top of that, for many, cars are an extension of their ego (vanity plates, custom wheels, extra lights, etc). I doubt people will want to give that up, if they can afford it. And unless we are talking car sharing, I don't see the efficiency of car use go up. If you drive an hour to work, and somebody else wants to make a similar trip, chances are there will be two hours between those trips, as most people live and few people work in the suburbs. Also, a car making two trips into town each day will make at least 3 round trips, whereas now, two cars each make one. Yes, there may be gains in building fewer 'second cars', and the number of accidents should go down, but total mileage won't go down, so wear and tear will not go down, so we still will have to build about the same number of cars. Conclusion: much higher efficiency? I don't see that happen.
    - VLM 10y ago
      Something missed in the geography of driveways and parking lots is roads. If magic cars are more expensive they'll fail and people will buy regular cars. But if magic cars are cheaper then people will have more money to do stuff equals somewhat more traveling, AND traveling will be cheaper so they'll be more likely to do it. Why eat bologna sandwich at home with a car you own, if its cheaper to take the family out to eat steak at a county park a couple miles away in someone elses magic car? Hey I sold my personal car and use magic car now, so I've got money to pay for a dentist AND instead of staying home I will have magic car drive me to the dentist... We might need less driveways but the road are going to get a lot more congested... Also we're going to burn a lot more gas and need more gas stations, more service stations, more car culture in general. Just not privately owned car culture.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  It's a silicon valley fantasy. Rest of the country right or left doesn't think about it so much.
  - smorrow 10y ago
    I see the utopian version as an /r/futurology kind of thing, and they're all a bunch of brainwashed communists on there.
- nashashmi 10y ago
  Majority of the time a car is not driving. At any point in time, only 10℅ of cars are on the road. For an average car that is 20k$, that is a big waste of investment for everybody in terms of resources and time. Car sharing is a temporary fix. The real fix is when cars can be brought to your doorstep without a driver. And you can just ride off. But the more cool and more disruptive thought is when the car take you anywhere you want to go. Lots of transportation modes might become obsolete then.
- catdog 10y ago
  It's a very rational thing to do if you live in an urban area. Individual owned cars spend most of the time parking taking precious space inside cities. Car sharing combined with non-shitty public transport to also reduce moving traffic could make cities a place for humans again, not a place for cars like it's now. I also prefer not to own car as an individual (if not necessary because of lacking infrastructure). It's stupidly wasteful from a monetary point of view to not use the thing most of the time. You have to take care of maintenance and driving in an urban area is also not fun (ok self driving cars would fix this). This "everyone should own a car" as a status symbol thing is/was fabulous marketing.
  - smorrow 10y ago
    > It's a very rational thing to do if you live in an urban area. ... I also prefer not to own car as an individual I'm at this point in life too, so I didn't really say "everyone should own a car". A free market includes the freedom to choose the Uber option (given that someone is offering that choice), and private provision of a good means supply is likely to match demand. I'm not against car-sharing - but in the utopian, /r/futurology sort of version of it I sense there are undertones of thinking we'll all be "free" when it's all communal and we don't have property and ownership, plus there's that whole zero-sum view of wealth and prosperity thing. This "communism will be great when it's Star Trek-type communism" thing is fabulous propaganda. It might not be deliberate or conspiratorial, so propaganda might not be the best word, but that's nearly worse in a way.
- adrianN 10y ago
  What has car ownership to do with political views?
- VLM 10y ago
  No one is actually answering why its a big fantasy among certain groups as opposed to other arbitrary and random groups, which is a huge shame. 1) Left is culturally dominant (the establishment) at this time, therefore all social signalling (social media) is left wing and has a single progressive unified outlook on life. Even if "emperor has no clothes" style no one actually believes it. That has two effects. One is that someone started it so everyone has to parrot it as common sense and the only socially acceptable outlook because there must be only one correct answer to social questions. The other effect is due to only one outlook being acceptable, any random people MUST be compatible with any other random person. In the real world of course you can't just randomly shove ethnic, cultural, or religious groups that are unfriendly with each other into the same very close shared personal space. It would be badthink apostasy to think everyone in shared cabs will do anything other than hold hands and sing girl scout friendship songs. In the real world of course it would be hell. 2) There is a cultural superiority complex or rationalization or something that drives them as a group against scheduled activities. The famous "look at all those residential driveways full of cars" is a tired trope. Its a little short sighted in that 99.99% of my life I have not required the services of an ambulance therefore I don't want or need ambulance service in my community. The majority of the car buying public has an elementary school daughter who gets out of school at 3:40pm not "when she can get an uber" or "school children should be able to participate in contracts" or whatever. It doesn't matter if on a 24 hour average all the cars at school pickup are empty 95% of the time therefore we only need 5% the number of cars... doesn't work that way, we need 100% of the cars that are lined up at pickup time. Ditto 9-5 office salaryman work or sports teams or anything with a fixed schedule. Sharing only works if everyone in your culture never looks at a clock and just hops bars when they feel the need, not 9-5 at the ole salt mine. Living according to a clock is extremely right wing. Most phones spend most time in pockets therefore we should share phones. Most underwear spends most of its time in dresser drawers therefore we need an uber for underpants. 3) I believe there's some residual "workers of the world unite" and we shouldn't own property and maybe the state could own all the cars just like the state owns all the bus vehicles and passenger trains. How dare the proles have agency and have the capability to move without government cooperation and tracking, etc. Much like owning a gun is fundamentally immoral because we should trust Big Brother to protect us at all times and any implication Big Brother is not our friend is badthink of the highest order therefore gun ownership is badthink. I'm sure Big Brother's cars will only have our happiness as their sole priority, it would be wrongthink to consider otherwise. 4) There is a study I don't have a link to WRT disgust reflex along political spectra, to the extent that sitting next to a smelly creepy homeless guy is likely to make a right winger retch and get disgusted at the smell but a leftie is physically more likely to ignore it while celebrating the vibrant diversity of the situation. Its like how urban people literally don't mind crime as much as suburban or rural people, although there's self selection going on there. 5) There are known demographic issues WRT ownership of a childs car seat correlating with various political outlooks etc. Inherently there will be less interest by left wing people in car ownership.

smorrow 10y ago

> I feel that people owning their own car won't be a thing Why is this such a big fantasy among leftists?

tf2manu994 10y ago
Not really a fantasy. I would prefer to own my own, but I can see why people argue that it won't be a thing. I find it inconvenient as hell to not own one, though.
nbevans 10y ago
I'm not a lefty (somewhat the opposite in fact!) but I would love this "fantasy" to be true. Self driving cars is literally a panacea right now, but hopefully it is achievable in my life time.
cmrdporcupine 10y ago
I don't think it's a leftist fantasy. It's a Silicon Valley fantasy. Us leftists are generally public transit advocates.
- makomk 10y ago
  It's also a libertarian fantasy - the efficient unregulated, private-sector capitalism of self-driving Ubers displacing the wasteful lefty socialism of public transport, that kind of thing.
mpg33 10y ago
Even if you're not a leftist you can see there would be a much higher efficiency of people only having a car when needed. You only have to look at driveways and parking lots to see how inefficient car use is currently.
- Someone 10y ago
  You only have to look inside those cars to see how that will not happen for those who can afford self-driving cars (most people, if the utopian predictions hold true). Most cars are extensions of one's home and are used to store all kinds of stuff (kid's seats, sunglasses, umbrellas, charging cables, tents in the back trunk, etc.) On top of that, for many, cars are an extension of their ego (vanity plates, custom wheels, extra lights, etc). I doubt people will want to give that up, if they can afford it. And unless we are talking car sharing, I don't see the efficiency of car use go up. If you drive an hour to work, and somebody else wants to make a similar trip, chances are there will be two hours between those trips, as most people live and few people work in the suburbs. Also, a car making two trips into town each day will make at least 3 round trips, whereas now, two cars each make one. Yes, there may be gains in building fewer 'second cars', and the number of accidents should go down, but total mileage won't go down, so wear and tear will not go down, so we still will have to build about the same number of cars. Conclusion: much higher efficiency? I don't see that happen.
  - VLM 10y ago
    Something missed in the geography of driveways and parking lots is roads. If magic cars are more expensive they'll fail and people will buy regular cars. But if magic cars are cheaper then people will have more money to do stuff equals somewhat more traveling, AND traveling will be cheaper so they'll be more likely to do it. Why eat bologna sandwich at home with a car you own, if its cheaper to take the family out to eat steak at a county park a couple miles away in someone elses magic car? Hey I sold my personal car and use magic car now, so I've got money to pay for a dentist AND instead of staying home I will have magic car drive me to the dentist... We might need less driveways but the road are going to get a lot more congested... Also we're going to burn a lot more gas and need more gas stations, more service stations, more car culture in general. Just not privately owned car culture.
Ericson2314 10y ago
It's a silicon valley fantasy. Rest of the country right or left doesn't think about it so much.
- smorrow 10y ago
  I see the utopian version as an /r/futurology kind of thing, and they're all a bunch of brainwashed communists on there.
nashashmi 10y ago
Majority of the time a car is not driving. At any point in time, only 10℅ of cars are on the road. For an average car that is 20k$, that is a big waste of investment for everybody in terms of resources and time. Car sharing is a temporary fix. The real fix is when cars can be brought to your doorstep without a driver. And you can just ride off. But the more cool and more disruptive thought is when the car take you anywhere you want to go. Lots of transportation modes might become obsolete then.
catdog 10y ago
It's a very rational thing to do if you live in an urban area. Individual owned cars spend most of the time parking taking precious space inside cities. Car sharing combined with non-shitty public transport to also reduce moving traffic could make cities a place for humans again, not a place for cars like it's now. I also prefer not to own car as an individual (if not necessary because of lacking infrastructure). It's stupidly wasteful from a monetary point of view to not use the thing most of the time. You have to take care of maintenance and driving in an urban area is also not fun (ok self driving cars would fix this). This "everyone should own a car" as a status symbol thing is/was fabulous marketing.
- smorrow 10y ago
  > It's a very rational thing to do if you live in an urban area. ... I also prefer not to own car as an individual I'm at this point in life too, so I didn't really say "everyone should own a car". A free market includes the freedom to choose the Uber option (given that someone is offering that choice), and private provision of a good means supply is likely to match demand. I'm not against car-sharing - but in the utopian, /r/futurology sort of version of it I sense there are undertones of thinking we'll all be "free" when it's all communal and we don't have property and ownership, plus there's that whole zero-sum view of wealth and prosperity thing. This "communism will be great when it's Star Trek-type communism" thing is fabulous propaganda. It might not be deliberate or conspiratorial, so propaganda might not be the best word, but that's nearly worse in a way.
adrianN 10y ago
What has car ownership to do with political views?
VLM 10y ago
No one is actually answering why its a big fantasy among certain groups as opposed to other arbitrary and random groups, which is a huge shame. 1) Left is culturally dominant (the establishment) at this time, therefore all social signalling (social media) is left wing and has a single progressive unified outlook on life. Even if "emperor has no clothes" style no one actually believes it. That has two effects. One is that someone started it so everyone has to parrot it as common sense and the only socially acceptable outlook because there must be only one correct answer to social questions. The other effect is due to only one outlook being acceptable, any random people MUST be compatible with any other random person. In the real world of course you can't just randomly shove ethnic, cultural, or religious groups that are unfriendly with each other into the same very close shared personal space. It would be badthink apostasy to think everyone in shared cabs will do anything other than hold hands and sing girl scout friendship songs. In the real world of course it would be hell. 2) There is a cultural superiority complex or rationalization or something that drives them as a group against scheduled activities. The famous "look at all those residential driveways full of cars" is a tired trope. Its a little short sighted in that 99.99% of my life I have not required the services of an ambulance therefore I don't want or need ambulance service in my community. The majority of the car buying public has an elementary school daughter who gets out of school at 3:40pm not "when she can get an uber" or "school children should be able to participate in contracts" or whatever. It doesn't matter if on a 24 hour average all the cars at school pickup are empty 95% of the time therefore we only need 5% the number of cars... doesn't work that way, we need 100% of the cars that are lined up at pickup time. Ditto 9-5 office salaryman work or sports teams or anything with a fixed schedule. Sharing only works if everyone in your culture never looks at a clock and just hops bars when they feel the need, not 9-5 at the ole salt mine. Living according to a clock is extremely right wing. Most phones spend most time in pockets therefore we should share phones. Most underwear spends most of its time in dresser drawers therefore we need an uber for underpants. 3) I believe there's some residual "workers of the world unite" and we shouldn't own property and maybe the state could own all the cars just like the state owns all the bus vehicles and passenger trains. How dare the proles have agency and have the capability to move without government cooperation and tracking, etc. Much like owning a gun is fundamentally immoral because we should trust Big Brother to protect us at all times and any implication Big Brother is not our friend is badthink of the highest order therefore gun ownership is badthink. I'm sure Big Brother's cars will only have our happiness as their sole priority, it would be wrongthink to consider otherwise. 4) There is a study I don't have a link to WRT disgust reflex along political spectra, to the extent that sitting next to a smelly creepy homeless guy is likely to make a right winger retch and get disgusted at the smell but a leftie is physically more likely to ignore it while celebrating the vibrant diversity of the situation. Its like how urban people literally don't mind crime as much as suburban or rural people, although there's self selection going on there. 5) There are known demographic issues WRT ownership of a childs car seat correlating with various political outlooks etc. Inherently there will be less interest by left wing people in car ownership.