7 ms·

Taxis are already self driving cars, and affordable for parts of the population. Those people buy cars regardless.

ehnto 10y ago
Cars are definitely more than a commuting device, they are cultural. Also I think articles like this often forget that while it would be great to not need a car for the morning commute, people in suburbia still need to do many other things like shopping and fetching children etc. Many of those tasks are just easier or more preferred to be done in personal transport. Sometimes you need to leave some shopping in the car while you go in to sit with the kids at an after school thing, before heading past a friends house to drop off their kids then finally heading home. A self driving fleet could probably still achieve that in multiple trips, but how many people want to deal with continuously pre-planning and concerting a half dozen small trips a day? I strongly dislike suburbia and car culture does grind my gears in various ways, but I can't help but feel the car-in-an-app is solving the very specific problem of short once off trips, and solving that doesn't even come close to solving the nations transport issues.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I suspect that a lot of people who live in cities, don't own a car, don't use a car much, etc. don't really appreciate the degree to which people customize cars for their needs (roof racks for sporting equipment like canoes, car seats for kids, etc.) and use them for mobile storage. As an exurban person who does a lot of outdoors activities, it's hard for me to imagine not having a personal vehicle. The economics would really have to be compelling and it's hard to imagine they will be especially if the number of miles "driven" go up.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    You will have carseat cars, cars with sports racks, larger minivans where you don't need the sports rack and so on. Uber today has a car seat option for example in NYC. I could see cars that let you just move the stroller in and lock it in with standardized connection types in the wheels, no carseat ritual required, no waking up the baby. I can also see cargo delivery cars that you just drop your shit in and it delivers it securely to your house after you have gone shopping. Or even more likely, you just use an app for that and not even go to the store. Malls turn into showrooms. All of that is for a self driving future. What you do today is use something like car rentals when you want to go do outdoor activities. A friend of mine uses uber to go kiteboarding and rents a car with friends when he goes skiing.
    - Kadin 10y ago
      There is probably a pretty well-defined density threshold where vehicle pooling makes sense, vs. personally owned vehicles. In cities, pooled vehicles are a no-brainer. It's probably already faster to have an Uber come get you than it is to park a personally-owned car in the core parts of NYC, SF, or some other megacities. This is only going to get better, including specialty vehicles. But as you get out into the suburbs and exurbs, it's more challenging to provide an acceptable level of service (max. 5 minutes from call to arrival, or some other pain threshold that causes people to just wish they had their own car). The economics also start to get harder: if I take an Uber (self-driving or otherwise) out to my house in the sticks, it's a lot less likely to get a return fare back into the city; that trip is a lot less profitable than circulation within an area. So it's doubly bad for a self-driving car company: you need a lot more cars/customer to provide the same service level, and you're spending a lot more time "deadheading" with empty vehicles, or charging extra to compensate. That's not to say that self-driving vehicles won't significantly affect driving and commuting patterns, even in rural areas, but the displacement of personally-owned vehicles is going to be more challenging and may lag urban areas by a very long time.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  I live in New York, frequently travel to suburbs around the country and world, and have not missed for a second the driver's license I gave up almost 5 years ago. This might be a generational thing.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    1. Do you climb, kayak, bicycle, hike? If yes, how do you get your gear to XXXX? 2. Do you rely on someone with a vehicle? I know lots of people don't drive who live in DC and NYC... yet they "borrow" friends shit all the time. 3. Generational? As in, can't afford a vehicle or would rather "borrow" a vehicle? Or?
    - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      1. Yes; trains and Uber. Skiing is tricky, but there are usually trains or buses or, worst case, a friend driving or an (expensive) flight to a nearby regional. 2. No, other than my parents who insist on driving me when I'm home. 3. I don't attach immaterial value to owning a car. I don't enjoy driving and don't see cars as symbols of freedom.
      - chrisseaton 10y ago
        I don't understand. Do places like the US national parks have train stations? And do you take an Uber all the way into the wilderness? Are Uber drivers really happy do that? Do you carry a SATCOM system so you can get a data connection to request an Uber to get home again? How long do you have to wait for one to turn up if you are doing a climb three hours drive into the wilderness? For example look at the 'getting here' page for a random national park, like Zion. It only lists directions for private cars. Presumably if there was any other way of getting there then someone like the National Parks would make it extremely clear how to do that. Are there train stations near Zion? Would you literally take an Uber all the way there from a major city? It would be hundreds of dollars wouldn't it? If you got an invite to join your friends hiking for a few days in Zion next week, how would you get there? I think you're going to reply 'well obviously you can't quite do everything and I wouldn't be able to do a climb far from a central visitor centre or join those friends' and bingo, I think the bar for what you can do outdoors without a car to get you there is pretty sad and you'll be missing out rather than living some high life of car freedom. My car's paid for, sits out of the way in my garage and costs me a week or so's wages a year in maintenance, fuel and insurance. It's an effective tool to get out there in the world and do things with basically zero negative impact on my life.
- bearcobra 10y ago
  I live in a city with Car2Go and this use case is covered by the ability to make stops on a trip. You just pay for the time that the car is reserved to you. I see no reason that a self driving vehicle couldn't offer a similar option.
  - throw_away 10y ago
    ReachNow goes one further and charges a reduced rate while parked.
- tluyben2 10y ago
  >Cars are definitely more than a commuting device, they are cultural I am from a generation (in my 40s) were most of my friends do not like the robot car idea because they love cars and driving. To me that is a very weird thing; I hated driving since I got my licence (well over 20 years ago). It is a nuisance and waste of time and I would never do it again if I did not have to. I find the cars I am supposed to like, like sportscars uncomfortable and beauty of a piece of transportation does not come into the equation. I do not know what it is with that obsession. But most my friends have it nonetheless. Which makes me have plenty of volunteer drivers who love to drive 1000km for fun while I read or work.
  - ianai 10y ago
    I'm the same way. The whole time I'm driving I'm wishing I could be doing something more productive with that time. It's a time suck and way too risky. Also, ubers too expensive.
mhurron 10y ago
A lot of people do not by cars in areas where there is affordable and useful public transportation or taxis. I would say most people are buying cars in areas where a cab would be significantly more expensive. There is currently no viable alternative to cars in the vast majority of the US.
rexpop 10y ago
The bullish hypothesis is that taxis come with higher operating costs than those with robotic drivers.
- jawbone3 10y ago
  That is certainly the silent promise in any gushing text about self driving cars, time will tell how good the robots drive after the few years of neglect most cars suffer.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Taxis are expensive and unreliable. An Uber fleet of SDCs would be gamechangingly better on both counts.
- jawbone3 10y ago
  All you save is the driver and some fraction of the accidents, and you gain a lot of sensors that need maintenance. Free transportation would be something indeed, but uber will never be more than a cheap taxi, and "cheap" is just a function of income. Additionally, taxi service doesn't have to be unreliable, that's more about american car ownership being so high there isn't much market for taxis.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    I think the typical SDC taxi will be a two seater. Getting rid of the driver not only saves on wages, but also space, weight, fuel etc. By "unreliable" I mostly meant the primitive "call your local monopoly, and they may or may not send you a car in 1-30 minutes, so just stand there and wait and worry" system as opposed to the quick and visible Uber/Lyft experience. I agree that taxi could work like that, I've just gotten used to the thoroughly rotten SF taxi system.
crooked-v 10y ago
Taxis in most places are complete crap. Cost doesn't matter if you can't depend on the car even showing up in the first place.
- zerofan 10y ago
  Taxis are usually disgusting too. I won't take a cab because I frequently feel like I need to shower after sitting in one. I rate Uber drivers almost exclusively by their cleanliness, which is usualy very good.
  - jawbone3 10y ago
    Taxis can be dirty, but there is nothing necessary forcing this state of affairs, and as you say at least one taxi company mantains a higher standard. still, it is not clear that making the car self driving will make the taxi cleaner on average.

ehnto 10y ago

Cars are definitely more than a commuting device, they are cultural. Also I think articles like this often forget that while it would be great to not need a car for the morning commute, people in suburbia still need to do many other things like shopping and fetching children etc. Many of those tasks are just easier or more preferred to be done in personal transport. Sometimes you need to leave some shopping in the car while you go in to sit with the kids at an after school thing, before heading past a friends house to drop off their kids then finally heading home. A self driving fleet could probably still achieve that in multiple trips, but how many people want to deal with continuously pre-planning and concerting a half dozen small trips a day? I strongly dislike suburbia and car culture does grind my gears in various ways, but I can't help but feel the car-in-an-app is solving the very specific problem of short once off trips, and solving that doesn't even come close to solving the nations transport issues.

ghaff 10y ago
I suspect that a lot of people who live in cities, don't own a car, don't use a car much, etc. don't really appreciate the degree to which people customize cars for their needs (roof racks for sporting equipment like canoes, car seats for kids, etc.) and use them for mobile storage. As an exurban person who does a lot of outdoors activities, it's hard for me to imagine not having a personal vehicle. The economics would really have to be compelling and it's hard to imagine they will be especially if the number of miles "driven" go up.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  You will have carseat cars, cars with sports racks, larger minivans where you don't need the sports rack and so on. Uber today has a car seat option for example in NYC. I could see cars that let you just move the stroller in and lock it in with standardized connection types in the wheels, no carseat ritual required, no waking up the baby. I can also see cargo delivery cars that you just drop your shit in and it delivers it securely to your house after you have gone shopping. Or even more likely, you just use an app for that and not even go to the store. Malls turn into showrooms. All of that is for a self driving future. What you do today is use something like car rentals when you want to go do outdoor activities. A friend of mine uses uber to go kiteboarding and rents a car with friends when he goes skiing.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    There is probably a pretty well-defined density threshold where vehicle pooling makes sense, vs. personally owned vehicles. In cities, pooled vehicles are a no-brainer. It's probably already faster to have an Uber come get you than it is to park a personally-owned car in the core parts of NYC, SF, or some other megacities. This is only going to get better, including specialty vehicles. But as you get out into the suburbs and exurbs, it's more challenging to provide an acceptable level of service (max. 5 minutes from call to arrival, or some other pain threshold that causes people to just wish they had their own car). The economics also start to get harder: if I take an Uber (self-driving or otherwise) out to my house in the sticks, it's a lot less likely to get a return fare back into the city; that trip is a lot less profitable than circulation within an area. So it's doubly bad for a self-driving car company: you need a lot more cars/customer to provide the same service level, and you're spending a lot more time "deadheading" with empty vehicles, or charging extra to compensate. That's not to say that self-driving vehicles won't significantly affect driving and commuting patterns, even in rural areas, but the displacement of personally-owned vehicles is going to be more challenging and may lag urban areas by a very long time.
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
I live in New York, frequently travel to suburbs around the country and world, and have not missed for a second the driver's license I gave up almost 5 years ago. This might be a generational thing.
- monkmartinez 10y ago
  1. Do you climb, kayak, bicycle, hike? If yes, how do you get your gear to XXXX? 2. Do you rely on someone with a vehicle? I know lots of people don't drive who live in DC and NYC... yet they "borrow" friends shit all the time. 3. Generational? As in, can't afford a vehicle or would rather "borrow" a vehicle? Or?
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    1. Yes; trains and Uber. Skiing is tricky, but there are usually trains or buses or, worst case, a friend driving or an (expensive) flight to a nearby regional. 2. No, other than my parents who insist on driving me when I'm home. 3. I don't attach immaterial value to owning a car. I don't enjoy driving and don't see cars as symbols of freedom.
    - chrisseaton 10y ago
      I don't understand. Do places like the US national parks have train stations? And do you take an Uber all the way into the wilderness? Are Uber drivers really happy do that? Do you carry a SATCOM system so you can get a data connection to request an Uber to get home again? How long do you have to wait for one to turn up if you are doing a climb three hours drive into the wilderness? For example look at the 'getting here' page for a random national park, like Zion. It only lists directions for private cars. Presumably if there was any other way of getting there then someone like the National Parks would make it extremely clear how to do that. Are there train stations near Zion? Would you literally take an Uber all the way there from a major city? It would be hundreds of dollars wouldn't it? If you got an invite to join your friends hiking for a few days in Zion next week, how would you get there? I think you're going to reply 'well obviously you can't quite do everything and I wouldn't be able to do a climb far from a central visitor centre or join those friends' and bingo, I think the bar for what you can do outdoors without a car to get you there is pretty sad and you'll be missing out rather than living some high life of car freedom. My car's paid for, sits out of the way in my garage and costs me a week or so's wages a year in maintenance, fuel and insurance. It's an effective tool to get out there in the world and do things with basically zero negative impact on my life.
bearcobra 10y ago
I live in a city with Car2Go and this use case is covered by the ability to make stops on a trip. You just pay for the time that the car is reserved to you. I see no reason that a self driving vehicle couldn't offer a similar option.
- throw_away 10y ago
  ReachNow goes one further and charges a reduced rate while parked.
tluyben2 10y ago
>Cars are definitely more than a commuting device, they are cultural I am from a generation (in my 40s) were most of my friends do not like the robot car idea because they love cars and driving. To me that is a very weird thing; I hated driving since I got my licence (well over 20 years ago). It is a nuisance and waste of time and I would never do it again if I did not have to. I find the cars I am supposed to like, like sportscars uncomfortable and beauty of a piece of transportation does not come into the equation. I do not know what it is with that obsession. But most my friends have it nonetheless. Which makes me have plenty of volunteer drivers who love to drive 1000km for fun while I read or work.
- ianai 10y ago
  I'm the same way. The whole time I'm driving I'm wishing I could be doing something more productive with that time. It's a time suck and way too risky. Also, ubers too expensive.

mhurron 10y ago

A lot of people do not by cars in areas where there is affordable and useful public transportation or taxis. I would say most people are buying cars in areas where a cab would be significantly more expensive. There is currently no viable alternative to cars in the vast majority of the US.

rexpop 10y ago

The bullish hypothesis is that taxis come with higher operating costs than those with robotic drivers.

jawbone3 10y ago
That is certainly the silent promise in any gushing text about self driving cars, time will tell how good the robots drive after the few years of neglect most cars suffer.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Taxis are expensive and unreliable. An Uber fleet of SDCs would be gamechangingly better on both counts.

jawbone3 10y ago
All you save is the driver and some fraction of the accidents, and you gain a lot of sensors that need maintenance. Free transportation would be something indeed, but uber will never be more than a cheap taxi, and "cheap" is just a function of income. Additionally, taxi service doesn't have to be unreliable, that's more about american car ownership being so high there isn't much market for taxis.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  I think the typical SDC taxi will be a two seater. Getting rid of the driver not only saves on wages, but also space, weight, fuel etc. By "unreliable" I mostly meant the primitive "call your local monopoly, and they may or may not send you a car in 1-30 minutes, so just stand there and wait and worry" system as opposed to the quick and visible Uber/Lyft experience. I agree that taxi could work like that, I've just gotten used to the thoroughly rotten SF taxi system.

crooked-v 10y ago

Taxis in most places are complete crap. Cost doesn't matter if you can't depend on the car even showing up in the first place.

zerofan 10y ago
Taxis are usually disgusting too. I won't take a cab because I frequently feel like I need to shower after sitting in one. I rate Uber drivers almost exclusively by their cleanliness, which is usualy very good.
- jawbone3 10y ago
  Taxis can be dirty, but there is nothing necessary forcing this state of affairs, and as you say at least one taxi company mantains a higher standard. still, it is not clear that making the car self driving will make the taxi cleaner on average.