4 ms·

This seems like really obvious -- in a good way -- market targeting. For the very old, that ship has already sailed. Thinking of my surviving grandmother, her

This seems like really obvious -- in a good way -- market targeting. For the very old, that ship has already sailed. Thinking of my surviving grandmother, her take on losing access to the car is "it's a bummer but I didn't have one until I was twenty five anyway." And many younger people would prefer not to need a car at all by virtue of living in a human-scale environment. But for my parents (baby boomer) generation, what I hear from them is "I don't know what I'm going to do when I can't drive anymore, that's just terrifying." They love their cars, and feel crippled when they can't drive anymore, as they lose access to the suburban lifestyle they've spent their whole life pursuing. Thus, going after the "active retirement" people who have money and want their "freedom" back is probably the best possible place for a self-driving car business to start. (edited for clarity)

TaupeRanger 8y ago
You must live in a big city huh? I know zero young people who would give up the convenience of a car, and I suspect this is the case for a majority of the country.
- dahfizz 8y ago
  People on HN tend to have this huge misconception that the entire world is one dense urban core. Many more people live in suburbs than in cities. The suburban population is actually growing faster than the urban population [1]. For this plurality of people, cars aren't only convenient but irreplaceable. [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-ec...
  - leesalminen 8y ago
    No, you’ve misunderstood. Young people love cities. They’re full of diversity and energy and startup jobs. Nowhere but a sprawling city has those things. Plus, if you don’t live in the city then you must burn more fossil fuels than I do and are clearly a terrible person. /s
    - cityboy2 8y ago
      None of that is sarcasm, though. Young people DO love cities. They ARE full of divesity and energy, and they’re typically job centers (how are single-family homes and strip malls going to provide startup jobs?). And yes, if you live in a city and don’t have to drive much or don’t have to drive as far, mathematically you’re using less fossil fuels. Suburban sprawl is an objective contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because you have to drive everywhere. So I’m not entirely sure how exactly you intended to be sarcastic.
      - leesalminen 8y ago
        > Young people DO love cities. I don’t and I’m <30. > They ARE full of divesity and energy So is the town I live in. > how are single-family homes and strip malls going to provide startup jobs? Have you visited Boulder? They make it work. > if you live in a city and don’t have to drive much or don’t have to drive as far, mathematically you’re using less fossil fuels. Yes. > Suburban sprawl is an objective contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because you have to drive everywhere. But I don’t care enough to change my lifestyle until everyone else does first. You’re kind of proving my point. The point of my previous post is that the HN echo chamber believes that everyone agrees on these subjects. Tons of people do not agree. You won’t gain any favor by painting large landscapes with sweeping generalizations of what people think.
        Fjolsvith 8y ago
        >HN echo chamber Where the dissonant note is downvoted and flagged to death.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    > the entire world is one dense urban core Suburbs as a place where you can only survive with a car are mostly an American phenomenon. Most other countries mix low density commercial and residential areas a lot more, making a car-less lifestyle much easier.
- burlesona 8y ago
  I said many, not all. There’s plenty of research to back up this shift in preferences. Just one example (https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials-prefer-cities-to-suburbs-subways-to-driveways.html https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials...) Sorry this upset you.
iambateman 8y ago
I totally agree. A self driving car, even with limited range-of-use, would make a huge difference for an 83-year-old whose children live across the city. I can’t understand why people feel the need to point out that self-driving cars won’t be able to handle Siberia as proof that they won’t be worth anything.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  They won't be worth anything...in Siberia. Also in places where they're technically feasible but unaffordable, leading to "no-autonomous zones", de-facto and perhaps also de-iure. The future is already here, and it's getting further and further unevenly distributed.

TaupeRanger 8y ago

You must live in a big city huh? I know zero young people who would give up the convenience of a car, and I suspect this is the case for a majority of the country.

dahfizz 8y ago
People on HN tend to have this huge misconception that the entire world is one dense urban core. Many more people live in suburbs than in cities. The suburban population is actually growing faster than the urban population [1]. For this plurality of people, cars aren't only convenient but irreplaceable. [1] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-ec...
- leesalminen 8y ago
  No, you’ve misunderstood. Young people love cities. They’re full of diversity and energy and startup jobs. Nowhere but a sprawling city has those things. Plus, if you don’t live in the city then you must burn more fossil fuels than I do and are clearly a terrible person. /s
  - cityboy2 8y ago
    None of that is sarcasm, though. Young people DO love cities. They ARE full of divesity and energy, and they’re typically job centers (how are single-family homes and strip malls going to provide startup jobs?). And yes, if you live in a city and don’t have to drive much or don’t have to drive as far, mathematically you’re using less fossil fuels. Suburban sprawl is an objective contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because you have to drive everywhere. So I’m not entirely sure how exactly you intended to be sarcastic.
    - leesalminen 8y ago
      > Young people DO love cities. I don’t and I’m <30. > They ARE full of divesity and energy So is the town I live in. > how are single-family homes and strip malls going to provide startup jobs? Have you visited Boulder? They make it work. > if you live in a city and don’t have to drive much or don’t have to drive as far, mathematically you’re using less fossil fuels. Yes. > Suburban sprawl is an objective contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because you have to drive everywhere. But I don’t care enough to change my lifestyle until everyone else does first. You’re kind of proving my point. The point of my previous post is that the HN echo chamber believes that everyone agrees on these subjects. Tons of people do not agree. You won’t gain any favor by painting large landscapes with sweeping generalizations of what people think.
      - Fjolsvith 8y ago
        >HN echo chamber Where the dissonant note is downvoted and flagged to death.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  > the entire world is one dense urban core Suburbs as a place where you can only survive with a car are mostly an American phenomenon. Most other countries mix low density commercial and residential areas a lot more, making a car-less lifestyle much easier.
burlesona 8y ago
I said many, not all. There’s plenty of research to back up this shift in preferences. Just one example (https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials-prefer-cities-to-suburbs-subways-to-driveways.html https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials...) Sorry this upset you.

iambateman 8y ago

I totally agree. A self driving car, even with limited range-of-use, would make a huge difference for an 83-year-old whose children live across the city. I can’t understand why people feel the need to point out that self-driving cars won’t be able to handle Siberia as proof that they won’t be worth anything.

Piskvorrr 8y ago
They won't be worth anything...in Siberia. Also in places where they're technically feasible but unaffordable, leading to "no-autonomous zones", de-facto and perhaps also de-iure. The future is already here, and it's getting further and further unevenly distributed.