4 ms·

The introduction of radial tires caused a collapse of the tire industry. People didn't start driving four times as far when the useful distance of a tire increa

The introduction of radial tires caused a collapse of the tire industry. People didn't start driving four times as far when the useful distance of a tire increased. Human driven cars are idle 95% of the time. Many fewer self-driving cars could handle the same capacity with ride sharing services like uber. I'm concerned that auto manufacturers would take actions to prevent this outcome, reducing the potential. EDIT: silverstorm that's an awesome point

sliverstorm 14y ago
On the other hand, self driving cars open all sorts of possibilities. Radial tires didn't increase the number of tires in use, because the number of operators didn't change and neither did the number of wheels on a car. Self-driving cars releases the number of active vehicles from the constraint of number of operators.
- dvanduzer 14y ago
  The point is that an industry currently operating at 5% efficiency whose profits rely on this fact will fight disruption. The Radial tire came from within the automotive industry, so even if there were some temporary losers, there wasn't any leverage point to fight adoption. With Google leading this charge rather than Ford, I think the best hope is for American car manufactures to strike a quasi-monopolistic partnership to gain advantage over foreign manufacturers. (I may be somewhat incorrect about the profit piece, what with the weird relationship between car manufacturers and car dealerships.)
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > With Google leading this charge rather than Ford, I think the best hope is for American car manufactures to strike a quasi-monopolistic partnership to gain advantage over foreign manufacturers. I'm glad Tesla is around for precisely this reason. Does it occur to anyone else that self-driving cars could be a solution to the chicken & egg problem for non-gasoline/diesel refueling/recharging stations? Cars could take the role of taxis, and computer algorithms could ensure that cars get routed to charging stations when they need charging.
    - ryanhuff 14y ago
      The self-driving car could disrupt all sorts of industries beyond automobile manufacturers or oil companies. The value of scarce parking could plummet, as a self-driving car can drop off passengers at a destination and seek out cheaper, alternative parking (with charging!).
latortuga 14y ago
Not to mention the possible implications for the auto insurance industry. When all cars drive themselves, am I responsible for my car getting into a collision? If not, who pays for it? If so, how can that be justified given that I didn't actually do anything to cause the collision? It's interesting to think about, for sure.
- ableal 14y ago
  The auto insurance companies will make a killing for a year or two, issuing coverage that will not be cashed in. Then the auto insurance business will go nearly extinct - after all, their margin is a percentage of the compensation paid. If there are no accidents, there are no payouts, and no margin ...
  - mratzloff 14y ago
    That's rather optimistic. There will still be collisions, and there will still be a role for insurance. At a minimum, there will be a transition period--but even afterward, there will still be cars that malfunction.
    - nuclear_eclipse 14y ago
      And there will still be government-enforced requirements for insurance, which will mean that rates will probably not drop too dramatically considering that it's pretty much a captive market.
- mratzloff 14y ago
  Really, it's not a particularly hard problem to solve. By letting the car drive itself, courts must necessarily conclude (for reasons of practicality if nothing else) that you are taking responsibility for that decision. Any collisions that result are handled by liability insurance. As time goes on and the robot car industry proves itself in practice, insurance companies will give big discounts to owners of robot cars, which provides a market incentive to buy one.
vijayr 14y ago
If software drove all cars, driving cars would become much more efficient 1. cars will last longer, which would make car manufacturers unhappy 2. cars will become more fuel efficient, which would make fuel industry unhappy 3. insurance rates will go down, which would make insurance industry unhappy 4. number of accidents would be less, cars would require lesser maintenance which would make mechanics unhappy etc But, more people (elderly, people with disabilities) would buy cars, so number of cars sold would go up. Also, it would open up whole lot of possibilities on the software side, construction industry etc (what if roads are designed for super efficient drivers, than humans?). Overall, it would be awesome to watch this happen - kudos to Google for tackling this.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - vijayr 14y ago
    I mean, we wouldn't see as much rash driving, there will be less accidents etc. which would increase the life of a car, which means lesser cars sold, and lesser profits for the auto industry
- eumenides1 14y ago
  5. Housing prices would go down in major cities in the short term? Less demand to be in a metro area? Living in the suburbs would be much more palatable because you could convert your "drive time" to "internet/reading time". Auto driving cars would be not be just a disruption (i hate that word) to the auto industry, it would be an earthquake that would have many aftershocks to the economy as a whole.
  - rogerbinns 14y ago
    > ... because you could convert your "drive time" to "internet/reading time". Sadly some of us humans are now genetically dead ends. I'm one of those people who gets car sick unless I'm looking out the window, best in the front seat and with cool air blowing. Consequently I can't really read or Internet. (If I look at a paper map for about 60 seconds I'll be on the verge of puking.) So even if I wasn't driving I can't really use the time for anything else (can't sleep either).
stephengillie 14y ago
The old rule of thumb is that most people drive their car 15,000 miles per year. If we assume that's 5% utilization, what does 50% utilization look like? Each car would travel closer to 150,000 miles per year. Monthly tune-ups and brake replacements. New tires twice a year. A modern combustion engine would need weekly oil changes and major maintenance every 6 months. It would last maybe 3 years under that workload. Electric car batteries may last 5 to 8 years at 150,000 miles per year. And that brings up another problem with increasing our utilization - we'll effectively be using the same amount of energy to transport ourselves, but using many fewer tools (cars) to transport ourselves. There's a limit to how quickly the batteries can be recharged in each individual car.
- lallysingh 14y ago
  A great case for electric cars, but remember that you will have competition from technologies built in long-haul trucking. But they'll love self-driving for their own reasons. There's no reason you can't have a stop-station quick-replace batteries, preferably automatically. You just need enough safety there to make sure the batteries don't fall out on the road.

sliverstorm 14y ago

On the other hand, self driving cars open all sorts of possibilities. Radial tires didn't increase the number of tires in use, because the number of operators didn't change and neither did the number of wheels on a car. Self-driving cars releases the number of active vehicles from the constraint of number of operators.

dvanduzer 14y ago
The point is that an industry currently operating at 5% efficiency whose profits rely on this fact will fight disruption. The Radial tire came from within the automotive industry, so even if there were some temporary losers, there wasn't any leverage point to fight adoption. With Google leading this charge rather than Ford, I think the best hope is for American car manufactures to strike a quasi-monopolistic partnership to gain advantage over foreign manufacturers. (I may be somewhat incorrect about the profit piece, what with the weird relationship between car manufacturers and car dealerships.)
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > With Google leading this charge rather than Ford, I think the best hope is for American car manufactures to strike a quasi-monopolistic partnership to gain advantage over foreign manufacturers. I'm glad Tesla is around for precisely this reason. Does it occur to anyone else that self-driving cars could be a solution to the chicken & egg problem for non-gasoline/diesel refueling/recharging stations? Cars could take the role of taxis, and computer algorithms could ensure that cars get routed to charging stations when they need charging.
  - ryanhuff 14y ago
    The self-driving car could disrupt all sorts of industries beyond automobile manufacturers or oil companies. The value of scarce parking could plummet, as a self-driving car can drop off passengers at a destination and seek out cheaper, alternative parking (with charging!).

latortuga 14y ago

Not to mention the possible implications for the auto insurance industry. When all cars drive themselves, am I responsible for my car getting into a collision? If not, who pays for it? If so, how can that be justified given that I didn't actually do anything to cause the collision? It's interesting to think about, for sure.

ableal 14y ago
The auto insurance companies will make a killing for a year or two, issuing coverage that will not be cashed in. Then the auto insurance business will go nearly extinct - after all, their margin is a percentage of the compensation paid. If there are no accidents, there are no payouts, and no margin ...
- mratzloff 14y ago
  That's rather optimistic. There will still be collisions, and there will still be a role for insurance. At a minimum, there will be a transition period--but even afterward, there will still be cars that malfunction.
  - nuclear_eclipse 14y ago
    And there will still be government-enforced requirements for insurance, which will mean that rates will probably not drop too dramatically considering that it's pretty much a captive market.
mratzloff 14y ago
Really, it's not a particularly hard problem to solve. By letting the car drive itself, courts must necessarily conclude (for reasons of practicality if nothing else) that you are taking responsibility for that decision. Any collisions that result are handled by liability insurance. As time goes on and the robot car industry proves itself in practice, insurance companies will give big discounts to owners of robot cars, which provides a market incentive to buy one.

vijayr 14y ago

If software drove all cars, driving cars would become much more efficient 1. cars will last longer, which would make car manufacturers unhappy 2. cars will become more fuel efficient, which would make fuel industry unhappy 3. insurance rates will go down, which would make insurance industry unhappy 4. number of accidents would be less, cars would require lesser maintenance which would make mechanics unhappy etc But, more people (elderly, people with disabilities) would buy cars, so number of cars sold would go up. Also, it would open up whole lot of possibilities on the software side, construction industry etc (what if roads are designed for super efficient drivers, than humans?). Overall, it would be awesome to watch this happen - kudos to Google for tackling this.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- vijayr 14y ago
  I mean, we wouldn't see as much rash driving, there will be less accidents etc. which would increase the life of a car, which means lesser cars sold, and lesser profits for the auto industry
eumenides1 14y ago
5. Housing prices would go down in major cities in the short term? Less demand to be in a metro area? Living in the suburbs would be much more palatable because you could convert your "drive time" to "internet/reading time". Auto driving cars would be not be just a disruption (i hate that word) to the auto industry, it would be an earthquake that would have many aftershocks to the economy as a whole.
- rogerbinns 14y ago
  > ... because you could convert your "drive time" to "internet/reading time". Sadly some of us humans are now genetically dead ends. I'm one of those people who gets car sick unless I'm looking out the window, best in the front seat and with cool air blowing. Consequently I can't really read or Internet. (If I look at a paper map for about 60 seconds I'll be on the verge of puking.) So even if I wasn't driving I can't really use the time for anything else (can't sleep either).

stephengillie 14y ago

The old rule of thumb is that most people drive their car 15,000 miles per year. If we assume that's 5% utilization, what does 50% utilization look like? Each car would travel closer to 150,000 miles per year. Monthly tune-ups and brake replacements. New tires twice a year. A modern combustion engine would need weekly oil changes and major maintenance every 6 months. It would last maybe 3 years under that workload. Electric car batteries may last 5 to 8 years at 150,000 miles per year. And that brings up another problem with increasing our utilization - we'll effectively be using the same amount of energy to transport ourselves, but using many fewer tools (cars) to transport ourselves. There's a limit to how quickly the batteries can be recharged in each individual car.

lallysingh 14y ago
A great case for electric cars, but remember that you will have competition from technologies built in long-haul trucking. But they'll love self-driving for their own reasons. There's no reason you can't have a stop-station quick-replace batteries, preferably automatically. You just need enough safety there to make sure the batteries don't fall out on the road.