5 ms·

It isn't entirely the having to manually drive that people don't like about driving. It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless

It isn't entirely the having to manually drive that people don't like about driving. It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. No matter who is doing the driving, walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. And anyway, walking is more fun. I grew up in suburbs, and the article described my experience perfectly. I may someday move away from the urban core, but I don't forsee myself ever living more than a block or two from a few cafes and a market.

learc83 15y ago
>It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Parking is a non issue because it drops you off at the door, and it can go park wherever is cheapest or just head off to another customer and you can call another one later. >walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. That's true if you live somewhere with a climate similar to Southern California, but there are plenty of places where I definitely do not want to walk a few blocks during most of the year.
- gradstudent 15y ago
  >Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Congratulations: You've just described taxi cabs.
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    Taxis are expensive and severely supply side limited. Interesting things happen when things that were previously limited become much less so. People had "internet" when they dialed it at 56kbits, but things like youtube were impossible. I'd guess that self driving zip-cars would be at least as big a paradigm shift.
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      What about driverless cars will make them inherently cheaper than taxis?
      - learc83 15y ago
        The lack of a driver. You need at least 5 employees to drive a cab 24/7 year round. Say around 40k a year per once you add in benefits, taxes, and insurance. That's works out to $200K a year. That's around 10 times the cost of a car, and a quick google search shows that the average taxi in San Francisco uses $20,000 per year in gas (down to only 7k for hybrid taxis). So in short, the largest cost (other than in places like New York where it cost a million for a taxi license) is labor, which driverless cars remove.
        waterlesscloud 15y ago
        It's around 10 times the cost of a car with a driver. Driverless cars will not be as cheap as cars which require drivers. There will be ongoing operational and maintenance costs which cars with drivers do not have. Liability insurance will likely be lower for driverless cars, but damage and theft insurance will likely be higher. Not every cab needs to be operated 24/7, there are clear peak and non-peak times which allow for fewer than #Cabs x 5 drivers for full practical coverage. And, of course, there's no guarantee that any savings in operation would be passed on to the consumer (see electronic publishing). So I don't think it's automatic to say driverless cars will result in cheaper transportation costs. It's possible , but it's far from guaranteed.
        learc83 15y ago
        Labor is by far the largest cost here. I have a pretty fair knowledge of the Google car and the Stanford cars that came before it. The equipment at scale isn't really that expensive and can be fairly easily retrofitted onto existing cars. Even if it ends up costing 50k and an extra 20k per year in maintenance (which is probably too high for a computer and a few actuators and sensors) taking driver labor out of the equation results will result in vast cost savings as a percentage of total operation costs. >theft insurance will likely be higher Theft will be nearly impossible for an average criminal. Remove human controls and you've instantly defeated 99% of car thieves.
- aboodman 15y ago
  Someone needs to pay for the fuel. Someone needs to pay for the insurance. Someone needs to pay for parking, the technical development, the maintenance, and the infrastructure. Guess who that someone is? You. In the fees you pay for this service (or in taxes that subsidize it). No matter how much tech you throw at it, walking down to the corner market for vegetables is more efficient (in a purely value/cost sense) than driving the same amount of time. My wife and I lived in New York for several years. We walked a few blocks to the grocery nearly every day. Was it awesome every time? Honestly, no. Winters can be brutal. But it was better than trying to hail a cab and wasting 10 bucks. And in the end, it felt good. Walking a little every day is good for you. I think driverless cars will eventually revolutionize longer trips, but I don't see it competing with living in urban cores much. Many people want to be able to walk or ride a bicycle as part of their daily routine. Many people want to be in close physical proximity to other people. Driverless cars don't reduce any of these desires.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >Someone needs to pay for the fuel. Someone needs to pay for the insurance. Someone needs to pay for parking, the technical development, the maintenance, and the infrastructure. Of course they do. But the average car is only driven a few hours a day. If you take the total fixed costs of a car and divide it amongst dozens of people, it's much cheaper than ownership. I also expect insurance prices to drop dramatically for self driving cars, given that over 90% of accidents are caused by human error. Additionally I don't think parking will be a problem with all of the now empty driveways of former car owners. Just give a discount for zip car service to customers in exchange for using their driveways to park downtime cars. >But it was better than trying to hail a cab and wasting 10 bucks. And in the end, it felt good. Walking a little every day is good for you. >Many people want to be able to walk or ride a bicycle as part of their daily routine. Many people want to be in close physical proximity to other people. All of those are true and I think given demographic shifts--people marrying and having kids later, resulting in more single or childless 20-30 year olds--we will definitely see growth in urban centers. However, I think it's almost purely a result of demographic shifts not some new desire to live in cities. Young childless people have always wanted to live in the city, we just have more of them than we used to.
- philwelch 15y ago
  > there are plenty of places where I definitely do not want to walk a few blocks during most of the year The climate issue can easily be addressed with a good coat and maybe a decent pair of snow boots. I really can't express how lazy and decadent this argument sounds to me--if it's not a clear, sunny day, you have to ferry yourself around in a thousand pounds of steel? Just so you know I'm not talking shit, whenever I could, I'd walk 10, 20, 30 minutes across campus and across town in anywhere from 0 to 100 degree weather, in snow, rain, hail, anything you could name. I had insulated canvas grocery bags so my ice cream wouldn't melt in the summer and my milk wouldn't spoil in the summer. And I'm a pretty lazy and spoiled person when it comes to physical comfort.
  - learc83 15y ago
    It's not a question of whether we're capable of doing it. It's whether given alternative will we choose to do it. You'd save money and it would be better for the environment if you took cold showers, but are you going to? Are many other people going to? Or are you going to buy a hot water heater and continue paying maintenance and energy costs for it. (I experimented with taking only cold showers--in the winter--for a few months btw)
    - philwelch 15y ago
      If automobile travel and suburban sprawl were no longer subsidized and the externalities were priced into the decision--yes, people would put on a damn coat and walk a few blocks. People do that all the time. It's not even that uncomfortable; nothing at all like a cold shower. Cold showers were exactly what I was thinking about when I said I was a lazy and spoiled person when it comes to physical comfort. And if you compare the climate of Los Angeles to New York, Boston, Portland, or Vancouver--empirically, it turns out climate isn't a determining factor.

learc83 15y ago

>It's also the time and cost to run, park, insure, maintain, etc. Driverless cars won't help most of this. Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Parking is a non issue because it drops you off at the door, and it can go park wherever is cheapest or just head off to another customer and you can call another one later. >walking a few blocks is more convenient than driving a mile. That's true if you live somewhere with a climate similar to Southern California, but there are plenty of places where I definitely do not want to walk a few blocks during most of the year.

gradstudent 15y ago
>Driverless cars will help almost all of those. Think how much more viable zip cars would become if you didn't have to get to the car in the first place. If you could just call a car with a smartphone app and it would show up. Congratulations: You've just described taxi cabs.
- noonespecial 15y ago
  Taxis are expensive and severely supply side limited. Interesting things happen when things that were previously limited become much less so. People had "internet" when they dialed it at 56kbits, but things like youtube were impossible. I'd guess that self driving zip-cars would be at least as big a paradigm shift.
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    What about driverless cars will make them inherently cheaper than taxis?
    - learc83 15y ago
      The lack of a driver. You need at least 5 employees to drive a cab 24/7 year round. Say around 40k a year per once you add in benefits, taxes, and insurance. That's works out to $200K a year. That's around 10 times the cost of a car, and a quick google search shows that the average taxi in San Francisco uses $20,000 per year in gas (down to only 7k for hybrid taxis). So in short, the largest cost (other than in places like New York where it cost a million for a taxi license) is labor, which driverless cars remove.
      - waterlesscloud 15y ago
        It's around 10 times the cost of a car with a driver. Driverless cars will not be as cheap as cars which require drivers. There will be ongoing operational and maintenance costs which cars with drivers do not have. Liability insurance will likely be lower for driverless cars, but damage and theft insurance will likely be higher. Not every cab needs to be operated 24/7, there are clear peak and non-peak times which allow for fewer than #Cabs x 5 drivers for full practical coverage. And, of course, there's no guarantee that any savings in operation would be passed on to the consumer (see electronic publishing). So I don't think it's automatic to say driverless cars will result in cheaper transportation costs. It's possible , but it's far from guaranteed.
        learc83 15y ago
        Labor is by far the largest cost here. I have a pretty fair knowledge of the Google car and the Stanford cars that came before it. The equipment at scale isn't really that expensive and can be fairly easily retrofitted onto existing cars. Even if it ends up costing 50k and an extra 20k per year in maintenance (which is probably too high for a computer and a few actuators and sensors) taking driver labor out of the equation results will result in vast cost savings as a percentage of total operation costs. >theft insurance will likely be higher Theft will be nearly impossible for an average criminal. Remove human controls and you've instantly defeated 99% of car thieves.
aboodman 15y ago
Someone needs to pay for the fuel. Someone needs to pay for the insurance. Someone needs to pay for parking, the technical development, the maintenance, and the infrastructure. Guess who that someone is? You. In the fees you pay for this service (or in taxes that subsidize it). No matter how much tech you throw at it, walking down to the corner market for vegetables is more efficient (in a purely value/cost sense) than driving the same amount of time. My wife and I lived in New York for several years. We walked a few blocks to the grocery nearly every day. Was it awesome every time? Honestly, no. Winters can be brutal. But it was better than trying to hail a cab and wasting 10 bucks. And in the end, it felt good. Walking a little every day is good for you. I think driverless cars will eventually revolutionize longer trips, but I don't see it competing with living in urban cores much. Many people want to be able to walk or ride a bicycle as part of their daily routine. Many people want to be in close physical proximity to other people. Driverless cars don't reduce any of these desires.
- learc83 15y ago
  >Someone needs to pay for the fuel. Someone needs to pay for the insurance. Someone needs to pay for parking, the technical development, the maintenance, and the infrastructure. Of course they do. But the average car is only driven a few hours a day. If you take the total fixed costs of a car and divide it amongst dozens of people, it's much cheaper than ownership. I also expect insurance prices to drop dramatically for self driving cars, given that over 90% of accidents are caused by human error. Additionally I don't think parking will be a problem with all of the now empty driveways of former car owners. Just give a discount for zip car service to customers in exchange for using their driveways to park downtime cars. >But it was better than trying to hail a cab and wasting 10 bucks. And in the end, it felt good. Walking a little every day is good for you. >Many people want to be able to walk or ride a bicycle as part of their daily routine. Many people want to be in close physical proximity to other people. All of those are true and I think given demographic shifts--people marrying and having kids later, resulting in more single or childless 20-30 year olds--we will definitely see growth in urban centers. However, I think it's almost purely a result of demographic shifts not some new desire to live in cities. Young childless people have always wanted to live in the city, we just have more of them than we used to.
philwelch 15y ago
> there are plenty of places where I definitely do not want to walk a few blocks during most of the year The climate issue can easily be addressed with a good coat and maybe a decent pair of snow boots. I really can't express how lazy and decadent this argument sounds to me--if it's not a clear, sunny day, you have to ferry yourself around in a thousand pounds of steel? Just so you know I'm not talking shit, whenever I could, I'd walk 10, 20, 30 minutes across campus and across town in anywhere from 0 to 100 degree weather, in snow, rain, hail, anything you could name. I had insulated canvas grocery bags so my ice cream wouldn't melt in the summer and my milk wouldn't spoil in the summer. And I'm a pretty lazy and spoiled person when it comes to physical comfort.
- learc83 15y ago
  It's not a question of whether we're capable of doing it. It's whether given alternative will we choose to do it. You'd save money and it would be better for the environment if you took cold showers, but are you going to? Are many other people going to? Or are you going to buy a hot water heater and continue paying maintenance and energy costs for it. (I experimented with taking only cold showers--in the winter--for a few months btw)
  - philwelch 15y ago
    If automobile travel and suburban sprawl were no longer subsidized and the externalities were priced into the decision--yes, people would put on a damn coat and walk a few blocks. People do that all the time. It's not even that uncomfortable; nothing at all like a cold shower. Cold showers were exactly what I was thinking about when I said I was a lazy and spoiled person when it comes to physical comfort. And if you compare the climate of Los Angeles to New York, Boston, Portland, or Vancouver--empirically, it turns out climate isn't a determining factor.