6 ms·

1. When self-driving cars are common, people won't park their car from 9-5 while they're at work. 2. While the passenger is at work, the self-driving car will

1. When self-driving cars are common, people won't park their car from 9-5 while they're at work. 2. While the passenger is at work, the self-driving car will be giving rides to other people, or delivering packages and meals (not parking or driving around empty). 3. Greater car sharing means fewer parked cars, lower demand for parking and hence lower cost to park.

cornellwright 8y ago
I generally agree with all of these, however demand is not uniform which results in some vehicles having to be parked while they're not needed. As another commented, it will be a very interesting optimization problem to figure out how to efficiently use the underutilized time of the fleet. There are a lot of things which are done at peak times now only because the owner of the car has to physically drive it there that could easily be moved to non-peak.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 8y ago
  The nice part about that problem is that it can be solved by some startup, which means that we don't have to be alarmist about it. As for the uniform thing, you are right, but it can be restated in economic terms as the car being more expensive to use during certain times of the day -- so people will have an incentive to go to work in off-peak hours (which will be an option not available to everybody, but the more that do so, the less the premium cost will be) thus smoothing demand.
- panarky 8y ago
  > demand is not uniform which results in some vehicles having to be parked while they're not needed Exactly. The salient questions are whether, at the point of minimum demand during the day, there would be more unutilized self-driven vehicles than the current state of unutilized owner-driven vehicles, and if at the point of maximum demand, there would be more or less vehicles on the road than today. Intuitively, the answer is "no" to the first question, since cars used for commuting in the morning and evening could be used for deliveries during the day. I don't know about the second question, and this probably has more to do with shifting trips from public transit to self-driven cars (not cruising to avoid paying to park). This research doesn't consider the reduction in parking demand, the reduced cost to park, the densification from reclaiming thousands of hectares of parking spaces, offsetting traffic of current delivery vehicles, etc.
  - secabeen 8y ago
    The challenge I see here is mostly psychological. Will people be okay with having to wait for the arrival of their vehicle when the self-driving car is delayed? Will they be willing to accept the wear-and-tear their car suffers when someone who doens't own it uses it as a delivery vehicle? The illusion of control is a powerful one, and I think many people will choose to own and park a personal car near to their work so that they can get in it and get stuck in traffic immediately, rather than waiting at work while the car returns through said traffic.
    - grimjack00 8y ago
      Another scenario is to have the car drop you off at a mass transit hub, then return home. When you get on the bus/train/whatever to return home, the car will meet you there. This may involve cars cruising around near the hub, though.
    - ddingus 8y ago
      They simply will not own a self driving car. If they do, it will be theirs, not doing random shit for who knows who.
adw 8y ago
In urban settings, when self-driving cars are common, people (generally) won't own cars. Owning a car – an expensive depreciating asset – will be an enthusiast thing, like golf clubs or whatever; eventually, the self-driving truck will tow your non-self-driving car to the track... Assuming the pricing works, most people will just use a car service.
- gambiting 8y ago
  I don't believe that for one second. Would it be cheaper for me to take a taxi to work every day than drive my own car? Absolutely. Do I want to? Absolutely not. The comfort of having my own vehicle that is set to my own preference and loaded with my stuff whenever I need it trumps the cost argument. Shared vehicles are just gross.
  - IanCal 8y ago
    It'll depend a lot on the difference in price for people - or another way of thinking about it is you can rent a better car than you can buy. I think a lot of people will have much higher cost pressures than many of us on HN (at least, my impression is that we here are typically well above local median wages). That may push it a lot, and even more when you remove the upfront costs. Also personally I'd love to not have to own a car. If it's even cheaper - great.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    > Shared vehicles are just gross. They are called busses, and trains, and trams. And they are not gross in most of Europe, for example.
    - dymk 8y ago
      No, I'd prefer my clean, quiet car to just about any European or American bus that I've taken.
      - stronglikedan 8y ago
        Heck, my car may not be quiet, or even always clean, but I love-love-love to drive!
rovyko 8y ago
When self-driving cars are common, most people living in the city won't own cars. It will be cheaper to take a cab and if you need to go out you can rent a car. Skyrocketing insurance will be the real killer of urban free-driving.
- manmal 8y ago
  Why should insurance become more expensive than it is right now?
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    The one way I can think it would get more expensive is that the pool of drivers with insurance would get smaller. That would naturally drive the rates and such up. The best analogy would be insurance for historical or classic vehicles; if you've ever looked into it, not only do they require certain things normal car insurance doesn't (for instance, they will typically only insure you if your car is kept in an enclosed garage), but because the pool of drivers is much smaller, it is more expensive to get.
    - freewilly1040 8y ago
      Classic car insurance is more expensive because they are more expensive to fix. Insurance for a piece of property is proportional to the risks of damage to or caused by the property, which shouldn't change much in a landscape with self driving cars in play
    - magnetic 8y ago
      > The one way I can think it would get more expensive is that the pool of drivers with insurance would get smaller. That would naturally drive the rates and such up. Why would it increase the rates? Rates are mostly driven by statistical analysis taking risk of accidents and cost of repairs into consideration. It is not a product particularly fit for a volume discount. If anything, fewer drivers on the road should mean fewer accidents, if the area/volume of roads stays the same (because of the drop in density, which means a drop in probability to be in the same spot as another driver at a given time). > The best analogy would be insurance for historical or classic vehicles; if you've ever looked into it, not only do they require certain things normal car insurance doesn't (for instance, they will typically only insure you if your car is kept in an enclosed garage), but because the pool of drivers is much smaller, it is more expensive to get. I don't think it's due to the pool of drivers being smaller. I think it's because the incident cost is much higher than high volume cars, because both parts and labor are more expensive for low volume productions (custom/exotic). Source: my exotic car.
jellicle 8y ago
> While the passenger is at work, the self-driving car will be giving rides to other people, or delivering packages and meals (not parking or driving around empty). Says who? I certainly don't want random people inside my car when I'm not around. Don't really feel like having "For a good time call 867-5309" and a drawing of a penis gouged into my center console, and having the seatbacks tagged with magic marker. ("We're sorry to hear that, sir. We have credited your account with a $25 credit for your trouble.") 130 million people drive to work every day in the USA. Something like 115 million cars. There are maybe 200,000 taxis in the USA. If we put 1 million cars to work, we've still got 114 million sitting idle, or rather, doing loops around the block because it's cheaper. > Greater car sharing Says who? You can already carpool and have ALL of the advantages of a self-driving car, it's just Larry driving the car instead of Waymo. But as everyone on HN will tell you, they don't want to carpool, they want to ride alone. Riding with others is what poor people do. You also have the economics totally backward. Your assertion is that driving will be better in every way - easier personally, less congestion, cheaper parking - and as a result, there will be less driving? Utterly backwards. Make something cheaper easier or better, and we use more of it, not less.
- swiley 8y ago
  I'm not sure it's really an economic thing. I think most people here are just excited about another application of software.
- manmal 8y ago
  Carsharing with autonomous cars will be way cheaper and 100% ubiquitous. I don’t even have Uber in my hometown, and I‘d love to get rid of my car. I‘m quite sure I could save €200 every month.
- panarky 8y ago
  > I certainly don't want random people inside my car when I'm not around It's not your car, it's Waymo's car. Waymo outfits the cars, provides continuous monitoring and support, operates a fleet of field techs for repair and cleaning, takes responsibility for insurance and regulatory compliance, provides dispatch and routing services, collects payments, etc. The cost is justified by high utilization of the fleet. The economics don't work for a single car doing nothing 95% of the time. Why would anyone want to own their own self-driver? > Utterly backwards. Make something cheaper easier or better, and we use more of it, not less. Yep, it's impossible to make anything cheaper, easier or better, because it instantly goes to shit when people want more of it.
olefoo 8y ago
As to point 1. why do you assume that current patterns of ownership will persist? If self-driving cars can be summoned as needed why would you want the hassle of maintaining a private one especially as parking becomes astronomically expensive?

cornellwright 8y ago

I generally agree with all of these, however demand is not uniform which results in some vehicles having to be parked while they're not needed. As another commented, it will be a very interesting optimization problem to figure out how to efficiently use the underutilized time of the fleet. There are a lot of things which are done at peak times now only because the owner of the car has to physically drive it there that could easily be moved to non-peak.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 8y ago
The nice part about that problem is that it can be solved by some startup, which means that we don't have to be alarmist about it. As for the uniform thing, you are right, but it can be restated in economic terms as the car being more expensive to use during certain times of the day -- so people will have an incentive to go to work in off-peak hours (which will be an option not available to everybody, but the more that do so, the less the premium cost will be) thus smoothing demand.
panarky 8y ago
> demand is not uniform which results in some vehicles having to be parked while they're not needed Exactly. The salient questions are whether, at the point of minimum demand during the day, there would be more unutilized self-driven vehicles than the current state of unutilized owner-driven vehicles, and if at the point of maximum demand, there would be more or less vehicles on the road than today. Intuitively, the answer is "no" to the first question, since cars used for commuting in the morning and evening could be used for deliveries during the day. I don't know about the second question, and this probably has more to do with shifting trips from public transit to self-driven cars (not cruising to avoid paying to park). This research doesn't consider the reduction in parking demand, the reduced cost to park, the densification from reclaiming thousands of hectares of parking spaces, offsetting traffic of current delivery vehicles, etc.
- secabeen 8y ago
  The challenge I see here is mostly psychological. Will people be okay with having to wait for the arrival of their vehicle when the self-driving car is delayed? Will they be willing to accept the wear-and-tear their car suffers when someone who doens't own it uses it as a delivery vehicle? The illusion of control is a powerful one, and I think many people will choose to own and park a personal car near to their work so that they can get in it and get stuck in traffic immediately, rather than waiting at work while the car returns through said traffic.
  - grimjack00 8y ago
    Another scenario is to have the car drop you off at a mass transit hub, then return home. When you get on the bus/train/whatever to return home, the car will meet you there. This may involve cars cruising around near the hub, though.
  - ddingus 8y ago
    They simply will not own a self driving car. If they do, it will be theirs, not doing random shit for who knows who.

adw 8y ago

In urban settings, when self-driving cars are common, people (generally) won't own cars. Owning a car – an expensive depreciating asset – will be an enthusiast thing, like golf clubs or whatever; eventually, the self-driving truck will tow your non-self-driving car to the track... Assuming the pricing works, most people will just use a car service.

gambiting 8y ago
I don't believe that for one second. Would it be cheaper for me to take a taxi to work every day than drive my own car? Absolutely. Do I want to? Absolutely not. The comfort of having my own vehicle that is set to my own preference and loaded with my stuff whenever I need it trumps the cost argument. Shared vehicles are just gross.
- IanCal 8y ago
  It'll depend a lot on the difference in price for people - or another way of thinking about it is you can rent a better car than you can buy. I think a lot of people will have much higher cost pressures than many of us on HN (at least, my impression is that we here are typically well above local median wages). That may push it a lot, and even more when you remove the upfront costs. Also personally I'd love to not have to own a car. If it's even cheaper - great.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  > Shared vehicles are just gross. They are called busses, and trains, and trams. And they are not gross in most of Europe, for example.
  - dymk 8y ago
    No, I'd prefer my clean, quiet car to just about any European or American bus that I've taken.
    - stronglikedan 8y ago
      Heck, my car may not be quiet, or even always clean, but I love-love-love to drive!

rovyko 8y ago

When self-driving cars are common, most people living in the city won't own cars. It will be cheaper to take a cab and if you need to go out you can rent a car. Skyrocketing insurance will be the real killer of urban free-driving.

manmal 8y ago
Why should insurance become more expensive than it is right now?
- cr0sh 8y ago
  The one way I can think it would get more expensive is that the pool of drivers with insurance would get smaller. That would naturally drive the rates and such up. The best analogy would be insurance for historical or classic vehicles; if you've ever looked into it, not only do they require certain things normal car insurance doesn't (for instance, they will typically only insure you if your car is kept in an enclosed garage), but because the pool of drivers is much smaller, it is more expensive to get.
  - freewilly1040 8y ago
    Classic car insurance is more expensive because they are more expensive to fix. Insurance for a piece of property is proportional to the risks of damage to or caused by the property, which shouldn't change much in a landscape with self driving cars in play
  - magnetic 8y ago
    > The one way I can think it would get more expensive is that the pool of drivers with insurance would get smaller. That would naturally drive the rates and such up. Why would it increase the rates? Rates are mostly driven by statistical analysis taking risk of accidents and cost of repairs into consideration. It is not a product particularly fit for a volume discount. If anything, fewer drivers on the road should mean fewer accidents, if the area/volume of roads stays the same (because of the drop in density, which means a drop in probability to be in the same spot as another driver at a given time). > The best analogy would be insurance for historical or classic vehicles; if you've ever looked into it, not only do they require certain things normal car insurance doesn't (for instance, they will typically only insure you if your car is kept in an enclosed garage), but because the pool of drivers is much smaller, it is more expensive to get. I don't think it's due to the pool of drivers being smaller. I think it's because the incident cost is much higher than high volume cars, because both parts and labor are more expensive for low volume productions (custom/exotic). Source: my exotic car.

jellicle 8y ago

> While the passenger is at work, the self-driving car will be giving rides to other people, or delivering packages and meals (not parking or driving around empty). Says who? I certainly don't want random people inside my car when I'm not around. Don't really feel like having "For a good time call 867-5309" and a drawing of a penis gouged into my center console, and having the seatbacks tagged with magic marker. ("We're sorry to hear that, sir. We have credited your account with a $25 credit for your trouble.") 130 million people drive to work every day in the USA. Something like 115 million cars. There are maybe 200,000 taxis in the USA. If we put 1 million cars to work, we've still got 114 million sitting idle, or rather, doing loops around the block because it's cheaper. > Greater car sharing Says who? You can already carpool and have ALL of the advantages of a self-driving car, it's just Larry driving the car instead of Waymo. But as everyone on HN will tell you, they don't want to carpool, they want to ride alone. Riding with others is what poor people do. You also have the economics totally backward. Your assertion is that driving will be better in every way - easier personally, less congestion, cheaper parking - and as a result, there will be less driving? Utterly backwards. Make something cheaper easier or better, and we use more of it, not less.

swiley 8y ago
I'm not sure it's really an economic thing. I think most people here are just excited about another application of software.
manmal 8y ago
Carsharing with autonomous cars will be way cheaper and 100% ubiquitous. I don’t even have Uber in my hometown, and I‘d love to get rid of my car. I‘m quite sure I could save €200 every month.
panarky 8y ago
> I certainly don't want random people inside my car when I'm not around It's not your car, it's Waymo's car. Waymo outfits the cars, provides continuous monitoring and support, operates a fleet of field techs for repair and cleaning, takes responsibility for insurance and regulatory compliance, provides dispatch and routing services, collects payments, etc. The cost is justified by high utilization of the fleet. The economics don't work for a single car doing nothing 95% of the time. Why would anyone want to own their own self-driver? > Utterly backwards. Make something cheaper easier or better, and we use more of it, not less. Yep, it's impossible to make anything cheaper, easier or better, because it instantly goes to shit when people want more of it.

olefoo 8y ago

As to point 1. why do you assume that current patterns of ownership will persist? If self-driving cars can be summoned as needed why would you want the hassle of maintaining a private one especially as parking becomes astronomically expensive?