A fully autonomous car (however unrealistic it may be) would be a game changer simply for the economics alone. Not paying full tax, insurance etc for a vehicle while retaining all of the transport possibility would be incredibly tempting to anyone on a budget. Not having to build housing with parking included could do great things for housing availability.
I’m not saying any of this will happen but fully autonomous cars definitely would open the door to a lot of opportunities.
Car sharing (short term rental) services already exist and can be a great option for childless young people who live in a dense city and seldom leave it. We don't need autonomous vehicles to make such services work. But they're totally unsuitable for how most Americans actually live. Like am I supposed to summon a shared vehicle every time I need to take one of my children to sports practices or games and hope it actually shows up promptly? And what if I need to evacuate the family in a natural disaster? The whole concept is just totally impractical regardless of the economics.
Everyone needs to go to school or sports practice at about the same time, everyone wants to go out on Friday nights and not Monday nights, everyone needs a car for monthly shopping at around the end of the month and everyone takes their vacation at around the same time each year due to school vacations.
When demand goes up, not only will it cost more, but there is no guarantee that you'll even get a car on time.
Uber and suchlike work currently because almost everyone uses them rarely, not four times a day.
I would expect self driving car to have much higher utilization most of the time. In addition you have people who can't/don't want to drive and would be able to use the service.
Driving children to activities is hardly a "corner case". It's bizarre how disconnected many HN users are from how regular middle class Americans live. Very few married couples with children would be able to manage with one car; they often need to go different places.
> And what if I need to evacuate the family in a natural disaster?
When I said it's a corner case but pasted the wrong sentence.
> You're really missing the point. It won't actually be cheaper except for the few customers who rely mostly on public transportation.
Am I? Why would you not expect it to become cheaper overtime? Uber/etc. needs human drivers who need to be paid and car sharing is inefficient because because most cars end up somewhere where none needs them unless there is continuous bidirectional traffic which is pretty rare. Self driving in theory would solve both these issues.
> Very few married couples with children would be able to manage with one car; they often need to go different places.
Yes well they could in theory get two separate self-driving taxis they don't have to always stay in the same car together.
Ride sharing services are amenable to network affects. I.e. they tend to end in monopoly. And monopolies are not known for reducing costs for the customer. If some effective regulation could counter the network effect, i.e. make it easier and cheaper to switch between different sevices, then a monopoly could be avoided.
Are they? Currently it's a low margin business with no real moat. It's hard to maintain high market share without continues subsidies.
> make it easier and cheaper to switch between different sevices
What barriers and/or costs are there for consumers which would make it difficult for them to switch between different services?
This is a purely political decision that does not depend on the availability of autonomous vehicles. It won't happen because it would reduce property prices.
Autopilots immediately get rid of that so I would disagree and argue the less humans the better. Have fun playing around with the "politeness" lever for example:
Traffic lights are a bitch, changing lanes is inevitable, incidents are inevitable.
That adds up very quickly, and when you consider the presence of intersections and traffic lights, you aren't dealing with an isolated roadway where cars just...drive. There are very real limits on how many cars you can stuff in a given stretch of road without radically redesigning roads in a way that makes them entirely unusable for pedestrians and cyclists (i.e. replacing traffic lights with slot-based intersections[0]), meaning there's an upper limit to how much self-driving cars can limit congestion under the most optimistic scenarios.
When self-driving cars eventually manage to take hold, no one reasonably expects car traffic not to increase. Right now, you park your car and do things. There's no real opportunity cost, because you can't be two places at once. When your car can drive around on its own, there's now a real opportunity cost. If it can earn money for you with no human present, there's going to be a massive incentive to let it do so. Stores will use self-driving delivery vehicles--either their own or as part of their own delivery sharing services--for deliveries.
Will there hopefully be big improvements in pedestrian safety and decreased accidents? I think so, though they certainly won't eliminate either. But there will be an incredible amount of increased traffic that goes along with it.
Demand might also go up.
Taxis are too expensive in most of the developed world to be that ubiquitous. But they aren’t uncommon in countries where labor is cheaper, which makes me wonder if robo-taxis in the developed world will be as common as human taxis in the developing world.
If you try to scale up ride sharing vehicles so they carry more people, you now have to build specialized vehicles that make multi-stop trips where you pick up multiple parties on-demand and drop them off at their individual locations. You've now eliminated the advantages of ride-sharing or taxis--they pick you up where you want and take you directly where you want to go--and managed to recreate a smaller bus. Let's call it a small, self-driving minibus that's not a bus system but a ride share system.
Only it's much worse than a bus, because bus routes are optimized in a way that vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers at what amounts to random locations on-demand never can be. Plus, you're adding even more vehicles to the road in addition to all the other self-driving cars that are running around making deliveries, looking for parking or running off to the outskirts of the city to kill some time as they wait for their human passenger to summon them again, or hustling to try to pick up passengers to make some money for their owners.
Heck, you can't even have them drive on access-limited busways or bus lanes because, by their very nature, they can't stick to dedicated routes.
Consider this: the Siemens S700 streetcar carries over two-hundred people in its usual configuration[0] with a length of just under 95 feet, or the equivalent of around ~6 cars that are almost bumper-to-bumper and trams can be built to be autonomous.
Self-driving cars have their benefits, but they're not an alternative to actual public transport solutions no matter how we try to dress them up. In the end, and as others have pointed out elsewhere in recent years, every new transit idea eventually boils down to a train. Or, in this case, an actual bus.
0. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:3ce5a...
I've only seen this as a 'just so' greenwash pr story from the automotive industry to offset the projected 300% increase in total road miles driven anually. Please explain why peole would be compelled to ditch their multidude of private cars just because they now come with a 24/7 free driver included?
We’re really going to spend billions and billions on further car infrastructure, more reduction in space-constrained cities towards pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and even the displacement of existing homes and communities for… empty cars?! If it weren’t so depressing, it’s a perfect indictment of the US’s car culture taken full circle.
- regarding my city (Paris) most sides are literally full of parked empty cars. I don't have the data but anywhere you go - apart the biggest boulevards and walkable very-inner-center - you'll see way more parked cars than driving ones. Indeed, 50% of space is allocated to cars while they represent 13% of the commutes [1].
- Vehicle occupancy was 1.5 in 2019 and is declining (US) [0].
0 https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/perso...
1 (fr) https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2016/11/30/a-pa...
Presumably the car is going to pick someone up. That means it isn't parked being useless. If this starts working at scale, supply and demand will pull ridesharing costs down in a way that reduces ownership.
"Because owning a car is expensive."
That hasn't stopped families from getting multiple cars thus far, so why should that change?
"And owning a self-driving car is likely to be even more expensive."
I sincerely doubt that. Just think of all the potential for selling services and preload deals on what is basically a rolling networked computer with the user literally captured inside. You might have to pay more if you want the non-add supported version or the one without the bundled subscriptions.
1. Renting a car will become much more convenient. I can summon a car instead of having to search one 3 blocks away.
2. Selling a car with an L5-autopilot will have to include a manufacturer warranty/insurance in cases of crashes resulting from a fault of the autopilot. Tesla is already charging 10k (or 15k?) for their shitty self-driving-gimmick without a warranty. I expect L5-autopilots to cost much more and even come at a yearly subscription (which basically offsets the insurance and the required continued development). I don't expect the average person will (be able to) pay that subscription, when the far more reasonable solution is to rent a car.
(And yes, all of this means that Tesla and most other traditional automotive company's stated commercial strategy for self driving makes little sense)