5 ms·

There's a lot of well-founded speculation that the twin, contemporaneous technology shifts of electric cars and autonomous driving will, in the long run, lead t

There's a lot of well-founded speculation that the twin, contemporaneous technology shifts of electric cars and autonomous driving will, in the long run, lead to decreased--possibly radically decreased--car ownership, as the cars become more practical and convenient to summon on demand. That may offset a lot of the per capita charging arithmetic being discussed here.

CalRobert 10y ago
Worth noting that this could also lead to incredibly worsened suburban sprawl, as the factors which make driving a long distance to work suck (time, cost) are obviated.
- abalashov 10y ago
  That is indeed worth noting. As a critic of suburban sprawl, I'm disheartened that the balance of Silicon Valley's efforts in this arena seem to be in making the world better for cars, not for people.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Yeah - so far I haven't seen anyone else point this out: * Automated driving permits you to nap, read, etc. while traveling in a car * Coordinated automated driving permits much greater throughput on the roads with high speeds and smaller following distances * Land farther from cities is cheap compared to land close * Electric vehicles are much, much cheaper than petroleum-powered ones on a per-mile basis I worry that everyone will want to live on a 3 acre estate on nice cheap land 100 miles from the city. After all, why not? Transportation is nearly free and you can kick back and nap for the 45 minute drive in to work (at an average 133 ish mph). 100 years from now, if humanity is somehow still around, I suspect California will be a gigantic skidpad with one giant metropolis that sprawls for ten times the distance they do now. Why not commute from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles every day? Or Yosemite to San Francisco? I mean, some people already do Stockton to SF (hellishly) and that's half the distance right there. For that matter, back in college I dated a girl and drove from San Jose to LA every other weekend. I'd wake up at 4:30 AM in LA and be in work by 11 or so, traffic permitting. If I could've slept in the car and made the drive half as long I would've done it a couple times a week. Has anyone else explored this idea?
    - abalashov 10y ago
      I saw it mentioned recently in another HN-posted article about the broader / derivative consequences of electric and self-driving vehicles: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/3/20/cars-and-second-order-consequences http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/3/20/cars-and-second...
usrusr 10y ago
And nonownership will lead to much smaller cars. It can be witnessed on island tourist destinations: the rentals at the destination airport are consistently smaller than the cars parked at the home airport. Without status considerations or speculative "what if" use case estimations over the whole span of ownership, people take the smallest car that will do the job. Ubers and taxis are big cars only because the driver is the most expensive "component" and cheaper hardware would not affect the cost of a ride enough to make a difference.

CalRobert 10y ago

Worth noting that this could also lead to incredibly worsened suburban sprawl, as the factors which make driving a long distance to work suck (time, cost) are obviated.

abalashov 10y ago
That is indeed worth noting. As a critic of suburban sprawl, I'm disheartened that the balance of Silicon Valley's efforts in this arena seem to be in making the world better for cars, not for people.
- CalRobert 10y ago
  Yeah - so far I haven't seen anyone else point this out: * Automated driving permits you to nap, read, etc. while traveling in a car * Coordinated automated driving permits much greater throughput on the roads with high speeds and smaller following distances * Land farther from cities is cheap compared to land close * Electric vehicles are much, much cheaper than petroleum-powered ones on a per-mile basis I worry that everyone will want to live on a 3 acre estate on nice cheap land 100 miles from the city. After all, why not? Transportation is nearly free and you can kick back and nap for the 45 minute drive in to work (at an average 133 ish mph). 100 years from now, if humanity is somehow still around, I suspect California will be a gigantic skidpad with one giant metropolis that sprawls for ten times the distance they do now. Why not commute from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles every day? Or Yosemite to San Francisco? I mean, some people already do Stockton to SF (hellishly) and that's half the distance right there. For that matter, back in college I dated a girl and drove from San Jose to LA every other weekend. I'd wake up at 4:30 AM in LA and be in work by 11 or so, traffic permitting. If I could've slept in the car and made the drive half as long I would've done it a couple times a week. Has anyone else explored this idea?
  - abalashov 10y ago
    I saw it mentioned recently in another HN-posted article about the broader / derivative consequences of electric and self-driving vehicles: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/3/20/cars-and-second-order-consequences http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2017/3/20/cars-and-second...

usrusr 10y ago

And nonownership will lead to much smaller cars. It can be witnessed on island tourist destinations: the rentals at the destination airport are consistently smaller than the cars parked at the home airport. Without status considerations or speculative "what if" use case estimations over the whole span of ownership, people take the smallest car that will do the job. Ubers and taxis are big cars only because the driver is the most expensive "component" and cheaper hardware would not affect the cost of a ride enough to make a difference.