"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
01/08/2016 at 16:19 • Filed to: None
2
2|
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
01/08/2016 at 16:19 • Filed to: None | 2
| 2 |
/rant
Why does everyone assume that autonomous cars will lead to more ride sharing? In a few major markets autonomous cars fleet with take the place of taxis, uber, Lyft and all those other “ride sharing” apps. News flash, Car2Go isn’t ride sharing, it is just a new take on renting a car. Uber isn’t ride sharing, you just caught a cheaper taxi, good for you.“Ride-sharing” exists now, it is called car-pooling. Do you know how many people car-pool? 4. They all live in Idaho.
People need to get to work. The vast majority of the car buying population has a job that operates during normal business hours. This is the cause of rush hour. People leave their house as late as possible in order to get to work on time. They don’t pick up anyone on their way to work. They drive alone, singing Stronger as they go. They don’t want to waste their time picking up someone else. Having an autonomous car won’t change this. It will still take time to drive to Alf’s house and wait for him to finish his breakfast. Maybe if you are lucky, Alf will eat his cat burrito in the autonomous car as it drives both of you to Initech.
Okay, so maybe after the morning rush hour, the car makes a second trip and gets a lazy bum retiree who doesn’t work but needs to go run some errands. Let’s examine why this won’t work. When you get into the autonomous ride-sharing vehicle, the clock starts ticking. You are paying for that ride. It isn’t free. If you want that car to pick you up and drive you around, is that any different than getting a taxi now? No, it isn’t. You are paying for the vehicle’s time. It will require maintenance, it will require a rate to cover the overhead for the business, it will require to pay for those happy ending massages at the country club for the CEO. People don’t take taxis around now as a primary mode of transportation because they have realized the benefits don’t outweigh the higher costs. Sure, in New York, where having a car is very expensive and you can walk everywhere, people do use taxis but only because it is cheaper than having a car.
When autonomous cars become ubiquitous, I’ll have two. I’ll need two. My wife and I both have jobs in different locations that require us to commute during rush hour. I won’t pay for the overhead and associated costs of a driverless taxi.
I have yet to see anything beyond pure speculation to showcase any correlation between an increase in autonomous cars and an increase in car-pooling, that is exactly what ride sharing is, car-pooling. People don’t car-pool now, they won’t for the foreseeable future.
For everyone who thinks the percentage of the population that will depend on a driverless taxi will increase, I’ve got some wonderful ocean front property in Arizona with your name on it.
/endrant
For your time
this is not matt farah's foxbodymiata
> Future next gen S2000 owner
01/08/2016 at 17:51 |
|
Hear hear! Autonomous cars have several benefits, such as better traffic flow and more safety. A software based driver with constant 360 degree awareness that doesn’t have something to prove will let merging cars in efficiently instead causing traffic to compensate for something, roll at a measured pace instead of impatiently accelerating and braking, and will actually be paying attention when a preventable accident is about to happen.
The only way to actually reduce traffic is to reduce the number of people on the road entirely. We figured out how to do that almost two hundred years ago.
Except no one wants to pay taxes for transit because it is only for poor people.
The Transporter
> Future next gen S2000 owner
01/08/2016 at 20:34 |
|
It’s because the technology fetishists that push autonomous cars live in very large cities with excellent (or at least serviceable) public transportation. They have no idea what life is like outside of their hyperurban utopias.