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.