5 ms·

Every time I hear this notion that autonomous vehicles will replace private car ownership in the U.S., it strikes me as a futurist pipe dream. I think truly aut

by dsnuh 8y ago

Every time I hear this notion that autonomous vehicles will replace private car ownership in the U.S., it strikes me as a futurist pipe dream. I think truly autonomous vehicles are a long way away, if ever. The capital and construction required to totally rearrange the average American city to get to the scenarios you describe would be incredible. I also think we are underestimating the cultural aspect of car ownership in America, as another commenter above pointed out.

stretchwithme 8y ago
I think it will tke longer than most of the optimists project. But it will happen. And there will continue to be people who choose to drive. I don't see a problem with that. If anything, they will be much more capable than today's average driver, as those barely capable give up and take cabs. They will certainly receive more scrutiny, as the number of cameras on the road will explode.
- dsnuh 8y ago
  If those barely capable give up and take cabs, then explain my morning commute. ;) Seriously though, I don't see truly autonomous vehicles unless we acheive general artificial intelligence. I don't see that happening in my lifetime or my children's, but obviously I am not an optimist. I don't know that driving skill will correlate with desire to drive or own a car. I think getting average Americans to give up their private vehicles and rely solely on public transportation or autonomous vehicles is a SV pipe dream.
  - stretchwithme 8y ago
    Easy to explain your commute. We don't have cheap automated cabs yet. People can't chose an option that they don't have.
    - dsnuh 8y ago
      My point is that I don't think many people would take that option even if it were available. I know I wouldn't, unless the costs to own and operate a private car went up drastically, and even then, I see it as more of an augmentation than a replacement, i.e. maybe I own a single car instead of two, and use cabs for most trips. There are some realities I think get overlooked. For example, I have a family of six, plus a dog that can't be left alone. How do I go about getting where I need to go in a fast and convenient way? Let's say I can't afford to live in the dense city center, and like most people, I live in the suburbs. Barring some huge shift in politics, infrastructure, and major advancement in AI, what is my motivation to give up my minivan?
      - stretchwithme 8y ago
        You can keep your minivan. Or you just hire a vehicle that has the room you need only when you need it. Uber already is pretty fast. I just used it in upstate New York north of Albany and there was hardly any wait. Any wait that exists will go down once robotic vehicles becomes dominant. And pricing will also be important to make that happen. People who want less than 5 minutes wait can pay more, but that will be pretty reasonable priced. It's cheaper to pay for a vehicle to wait for 5 minutes or even 20 than it ever could be to make it wait for 3 hours or 12 hours. And that IS essentially what we do when we have a vehicle on constant standby. We are paying for the fixed costs of having it wait around all the time. There's a daily cost to tie up that capital. It's 1/30 of your monthly payment. And an hourly cost. In any case, individuals will be able to choose the option that suits them. And go back and forth. Some days you may value immediate pickup and you could rental a vehicle by the day. Other days you may not care and want to save money. Or you use your vehicle to care around tons of stuff and it's better for you to own. It's all good.
        dsnuh 8y ago
        I agree that this will be the case, I thought you were arguing that private car ownership will virtually disappear. We are already in the situation you described. Sure, maybe use of public transportation and Uber type services will go up some, but I can't see anyone who has a private car in their driveway using Uber or public transit in anything other than unusual circumstances (need to go to airport, need a designated driver, you are on vacation it business travel, the car is in the shop with no loaner, etc), just like the majority of people I know do today. Admittedly, I don't live in a city center, but unless housing prices decrease substantially, I don't see the influx to dense metropolitan areas necessary for the kind of mass transit you're envisioning.
  - stretchwithme 8y ago
    In major cities, its already more convenient not to own a car, even if your stuck using mass transit. The area where that is the case will expand enormously once a chauffeur driven limousine is cheaper than standing-room-only mass transit. There's no way I'd drive up to San Francisco and deal with parking when I can be driven up there and dropped off for the same money. Even twice the same money would be a good deal.
    - cozzyd 8y ago
      But buses will be much cheaper to operate too, so they wouldn't be standing room only. A city that had only buses and no private cars would have a very fast and efficient transportation network.
      - dsnuh 8y ago
        Why will buses be much cheaper than they are now? Because they are driverless? I think that's one small part of the calculation that goes into fare prices.
        cozzyd 8y ago
        Labor is usually the dominant cost of running buses in rich countries. You'd still presumably have to hire inspectors to make sure people pay the fare but you only need a small multiplier of those two buses.
        stretchwithme 8y ago
        The dominant costs for USING the bus is the wasted time, lost convenience and lost comfort. And it's the total cost that people consider, not just the fare. You wouldn't need inspectors to make sure fares are paid. A lot of trains already don't have them. But eventually it will be very easy to tell electronically if someone boarding a bus has paid the fare. You could even keep track of who doesn't and collect a fine later.
      - stretchwithme 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by dsnuh 8y ago

stretchwithme 8y ago

I think it will tke longer than most of the optimists project. But it will happen. And there will continue to be people who choose to drive. I don't see a problem with that. If anything, they will be much more capable than today's average driver, as those barely capable give up and take cabs. They will certainly receive more scrutiny, as the number of cameras on the road will explode.

dsnuh 8y ago
If those barely capable give up and take cabs, then explain my morning commute. ;) Seriously though, I don't see truly autonomous vehicles unless we acheive general artificial intelligence. I don't see that happening in my lifetime or my children's, but obviously I am not an optimist. I don't know that driving skill will correlate with desire to drive or own a car. I think getting average Americans to give up their private vehicles and rely solely on public transportation or autonomous vehicles is a SV pipe dream.
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  Easy to explain your commute. We don't have cheap automated cabs yet. People can't chose an option that they don't have.
  - dsnuh 8y ago
    My point is that I don't think many people would take that option even if it were available. I know I wouldn't, unless the costs to own and operate a private car went up drastically, and even then, I see it as more of an augmentation than a replacement, i.e. maybe I own a single car instead of two, and use cabs for most trips. There are some realities I think get overlooked. For example, I have a family of six, plus a dog that can't be left alone. How do I go about getting where I need to go in a fast and convenient way? Let's say I can't afford to live in the dense city center, and like most people, I live in the suburbs. Barring some huge shift in politics, infrastructure, and major advancement in AI, what is my motivation to give up my minivan?
    - stretchwithme 8y ago
      You can keep your minivan. Or you just hire a vehicle that has the room you need only when you need it. Uber already is pretty fast. I just used it in upstate New York north of Albany and there was hardly any wait. Any wait that exists will go down once robotic vehicles becomes dominant. And pricing will also be important to make that happen. People who want less than 5 minutes wait can pay more, but that will be pretty reasonable priced. It's cheaper to pay for a vehicle to wait for 5 minutes or even 20 than it ever could be to make it wait for 3 hours or 12 hours. And that IS essentially what we do when we have a vehicle on constant standby. We are paying for the fixed costs of having it wait around all the time. There's a daily cost to tie up that capital. It's 1/30 of your monthly payment. And an hourly cost. In any case, individuals will be able to choose the option that suits them. And go back and forth. Some days you may value immediate pickup and you could rental a vehicle by the day. Other days you may not care and want to save money. Or you use your vehicle to care around tons of stuff and it's better for you to own. It's all good.
      - dsnuh 8y ago
        I agree that this will be the case, I thought you were arguing that private car ownership will virtually disappear. We are already in the situation you described. Sure, maybe use of public transportation and Uber type services will go up some, but I can't see anyone who has a private car in their driveway using Uber or public transit in anything other than unusual circumstances (need to go to airport, need a designated driver, you are on vacation it business travel, the car is in the shop with no loaner, etc), just like the majority of people I know do today. Admittedly, I don't live in a city center, but unless housing prices decrease substantially, I don't see the influx to dense metropolitan areas necessary for the kind of mass transit you're envisioning.
- stretchwithme 8y ago
  In major cities, its already more convenient not to own a car, even if your stuck using mass transit. The area where that is the case will expand enormously once a chauffeur driven limousine is cheaper than standing-room-only mass transit. There's no way I'd drive up to San Francisco and deal with parking when I can be driven up there and dropped off for the same money. Even twice the same money would be a good deal.
  - cozzyd 8y ago
    But buses will be much cheaper to operate too, so they wouldn't be standing room only. A city that had only buses and no private cars would have a very fast and efficient transportation network.
    - dsnuh 8y ago
      Why will buses be much cheaper than they are now? Because they are driverless? I think that's one small part of the calculation that goes into fare prices.
      - cozzyd 8y ago
        Labor is usually the dominant cost of running buses in rich countries. You'd still presumably have to hire inspectors to make sure people pay the fare but you only need a small multiplier of those two buses.
        stretchwithme 8y ago
        The dominant costs for USING the bus is the wasted time, lost convenience and lost comfort. And it's the total cost that people consider, not just the fare. You wouldn't need inspectors to make sure fares are paid. A lot of trains already don't have them. But eventually it will be very easy to tell electronically if someone boarding a bus has paid the fare. You could even keep track of who doesn't and collect a fine later.
    - stretchwithme 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]