Autonomous vehicles and the transition challenges?

I also do not see the ownership model remaining in place - people will not, for the most part, own their own car for basic transportation just like they do not own their own plane. Frankly - it almost does not really make sense now for someone to own a luxury car instead of paying a lease rate to a limo service. When the cost of summoning a vehicle does not include wages for a driver and high insurance we will have reached the tipping point for the middle class in a reasonably populated area to get a $400/500/1000/mo vehicle service just like a snow removal or lawn service agreement.

Taxi fleets will be massive and the cost of the old infrastructure based on selective tax (tickets) will be born by everyone in the fees associated with the ride just like they are now for cabs or hotel rooms, etc.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Thanks for the counterpoints. Allow me to respond:

1. I'll buy that gasoline will still be around, I just think it will be much less available than it currently is. It's not like OPEC is going to keep producing the same amount they currently do if demand drops. And if it becomes even a slight hassle to find a fueling station, that's just one more hurdle that potential customers are likely to avoid when buying cars.

2. Why would insurance companies willingly give up profits and shrink? I assume they'll rollout discounts for safe operating autonomous vehicles initially, but they'll raise rates for those choosing to operate their own vehicle (since it would be seen as much higher risk) to offset the losses. If fleets of ride sharing vehicles become the norm, then they can gradually increase the fees they charge corporate America, who will then pass those costs onto the consumer in the form of increased fares.

3. I agree that it will be more affordable and convenient, but I think that's primarily a result of reasons 1 and 2 above.

4. We agree

5. We agree

6. Interest in cars in general is waning among younger generations. How long does it take for "car guys" to thin out even more if most of what's for sale is an autonomous, electric appliance? What if people forego car ownership altogether as you suggest for ride sharing, and have no need for a large garage? If combustion vehicles aren't worth much, and they're expensive to operate, then how many people would be willing and able to keep them to justify a workshop?

7. I've heard people speculate that certain vehicles might be worth more in the future. I'm not sure there will be much market for any ICE powered vehicles in 30 years, so worrying about that, or spending money hoping to see a return seems like a waste to me. I don't see a future where vintage cars continue to cross auction blocks for tons of money.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: I think autonomous will cover the fleet well before EV's do.

Yep, electric powertrains will take at least as long as autonomous driving tech to spread among new cars. I'd say in 5 years most new cars will have autonomous driving capability (at least on par with a present-day Tesla S) and less than half will be electric.

Fitting autonomous tech to a car is considerably cheaper than EVs.

Huckleberry wrote: I also do not see the ownership model remaining in place - people will not, for the most part, own their own car for basic transportation just like they do not own their own plane. Frankly - it almost does not really make sense now for someone to own a luxury car instead of paying a lease rate to a limo service. When the cost of summoning a vehicle does not include wages for a driver and high insurance we will have reached the tipping point for the middle class in a reasonably populated area to get a $400/500/1000/mo vehicle service just like a snow removal or lawn service agreement. Taxi fleets will be massive and the cost of the old infrastructure based on selective tax (tickets) will be born by everyone in the fees associated with the ride just like they are now for cabs or hotel rooms, etc.

There's cities like New York and Chicago where that makes some sense.

But most of the rest of the world, it does not. Right now, most people are not willing to car pool. The only way they will part with their personal transportation is if there's a good public alternative. That's going to be a big problem, since people have enough issues with the taxed roads.

Without car pooling, and public transportation, each of us are still going to need a ride to work. For the ownership model to actually end, a few hundred million cars will have to be available at any given time- since every one commutes at nearly the same time. Sure, you can have cars that pick up/drop off at 6-7 and then 7-8. But I bet more people would rather have the transportation handy vs. having to call it and wait.

Bear in mind, that option exists right now- I have seen people take taxis to work.

But a multi-hundred million vehicle fleet of taxis seem pretty unrealistic.

You wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Bear in mind, it's not legal to make old cars that are still legal to the day they were made legally obsolete. So old gas cars will still be able to use the streets. At some point, they may be the huge minority, but you can't make them illegal.

I changed to:

alfadriver wrote: Bear in mind, it's not legal to make Horse and buggy that are still legal to the day they were made legally obsolete. So old Horse and buggy will still be able to use the streets. At some point, they may be the huge minority, but you can't make them illegal.

I'm pretty sure it is not legal to take a horse and buggy down US1 (Woodward Ave) any more. I assure you can not take a horse and buggy down I-75.
Sure, there are country roads that still allow horse and buggy but there are places you can not go. Can you cross over to Windsor, ON from Detroit in any manor via horse and buggy?

I expect similar in the future just replace horse and buggy with "self drive car".

1. I don't think it'll even become a slight hassle until gas stations start phasing the pumps out (completely). Then you'll have to order your gas or buy it at a race shop, and there will be some hassle.

2. Their only options are to give up profits and shrink, or to form a cartel. Insurance is a hyper-competitive industry right now.

3. Autonomous cars might indeed mean less "car guys." Less people will be introduced to driving at all in their everyday lives. But a workshop (assuming a general-purpose workshop, not one with lifts taking up all the space) can be useful for all kinds of hobbies. Some people might just take the yuppie route and convert them into a non-workshop space, like a home theatre, guest house, yoga/art studio etc. Basically unless you've build a workshop for cars nothing changes.

4. In 30 years, an average Joe will want nothing to do with an achey-breaky ICE that drinks costly, costly gas, so unless you're buying something an enthusiast would be interested in, you're right that it's not worth worrying.

JohnRW1621 wrote: I'm pretty sure it is not legal to take a horse and buggy down US1 (Woodward Ave) any more. I assure you can not take a horse and buggy down I-75. Sure, there are country roads that still allow horse and buggy but there are places you can not go. Can you cross over to Windsor, ON from Detroit in any manor via horse and buggy? I expect similar in the future just replace horse and buggy with "self drive car".

You're right, but I'd say that's a long way off, at least 30 years. I think by the time human-driven cars have to drive on the side of the road with a "slow moving vehicle" sign, almost nobody will still be driving them.

In reply to JohnRW1621:

Sure, you can mandate that certain roads are for certain cars. But that doesn't mean the alternative is banned. I don't see why a horse and buggy would not be legal on Woodward. I75, sure- there are limits to what is allowed.

Other than the restrictions of taking a live animal across the border, I don't see why one would not be allowed on the bridge.

Maybe in 100 years when the # of old cars are so few, and new road systems are so many. But it's not legal to ban products that were legal when sold that day. And it's going to take a LONG time rolling over a 300M car fleet at 20M a year.

So, as a subset to the original thread, where do people line up on the eventual ownership vision?

1-Do we all just own our own autonomous vehicle, in which case insurance, mechanics and all other infrastructure stays the same?

2-Do we go directly to the roaming fleet of standardized people delivery vehicles with the only differentiation being a level of urgency and luxury that the users subscribes to.

3-Half and half?

While the efficiency expert in me ( that is a joke) envisions the roaming fleet of people movers, I picture the proletariat version to be much like the back seat of a cop car or a public restroom.There goes the "Motel room by the hour" industry! Wait...maybe there is a whole NEW industry to be carved out of this brave new world?!

Well this thoroughly depressing thread has me rooting for Giant Asteroid 2016 even harder. Considering the state of the World Series right now can the end really be that far away?

I think #3. Maybe not even half will go to "mobility services" only. Consider that a car you own is a secure storage locker, a car you borrow is not.

In reply to NOHOME:

I think you left out a few options:

4- Early adopters enter the market as small businesses, own "their own" AT car, but lease it out to others. This will reduce the number of owners, and be a stepping stone to larger fleet ownership.

5- Not just people delivery services. Packages too. Picture standardized loading docks with the capability to off-load standardized pods from pickup sized fat bed chassis.

6- Customized vehicles for all types. Some might look like a living room, some might be mobile office pods, some might be portable gaming pod stations, some might include childcare capabilities, some might include a masseuse or prostitute for your traveling pleasure.

GameboyRMH wrote: I think #3. Maybe not even half will go to "mobility services" only. Consider that a car you own is a secure storage locker, a car you borrow is not.

Right. But if the "vehicle" has standardized mobile "locker pods", it can transport you AND your stuff, and leave the pod with you. Construction does this now with gang boxes (you'd be surprised how many construction workers do not have vehicles at all, and just take a "road case" with their tools)

Every challenge or difficulty presented by autonomous cars is a new business opportunity, or even an entire new industry opportunity!

I think if we could go back in time 50 years with unlimited $ I would have bought railway lines. The WalMart/Amazon distribution model plus autonomous vehicles is only a thousand rail routes away from being able to take half the trucks off the road fast. Everything between distribution centers could be autonomous and completely independent of road traffic.

One interesting facet of autonomous vehicles will be the traffic chase/ ambulance/ presidential parade effect. When whoever is in charge wants a road anyone traveling on it will at least be re-routed, but more likely their pods will just be stopped on the sides of the road. That could be good or bad, but certainly interesting.

JohnRW1621 wrote: I'm pretty sure it is not legal to take a horse and buggy down US1 (Woodward Ave) any more. I assure you can not take a horse and buggy down I-75.

Routes 1, 322, 22 or 30 in PA would not be considered secondary roads anywhere - yet the Amish routinely meander down them at 4mph amid tractor trailers and rush hour Philly/Allentown/Harrisburg traffic. It does make you understand how it's possible to truly hate another human being for the split second it takes to murder them but otherwise remain a normal person who just really needs to be somewhere.

GameboyRMH wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: The responsibility falls to us as enthusiasts to fight this idiocy to the last man. It's time for torches and pitchforks! To paraphrase the poet Dylan Thomas: "Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Do not go gentle into that good night." I'm pretty sure he was talking about autonomous automobiles.

That's silly, as silly as horse racers raging against the introduction of the automobile, and for all the same reasons.

So, question: Who gets sued when an "autonomous" car is involved in a collision and kills or maims its occupants or others? The "at fault" party will no longer be an individual, but a machine. The liability of course falls to the manufacturer, who happens to have some pretty deep pockets. If we do in fact see "autonomous" cars released into the wild in large numbers, I predict it won't be long before we see some "glitches," followed by some really big settlements.

I think many of you have far too much faith in technology. When was the last time your Windows computer crashed?

In reply to 1988RedT2:

It kind of doesn't matter. It's coming. Doesn't really matter if we have faith in technology or not, nor who gets sued.

The liabilities, fault, glitches, tech support, maintenance, improving technologies, etc. are ALL business opportunities.

SVreX wrote: Cellphones went from extremely rare to hard to live without in less than 10 years. I don't believe autonomous cars will take several decades. The motivation for change will be irresistible.

You don't write software for a living, do you? Genuinely autonomous vehicles (as in the kind you would trust to take your child to school and then come home to park itself in the garage without any adult present) require strong AI, something that's been "10 years away" for the last 50 years.

I can't help but feel they made a very deliberate choice in making beer the item that the autonomous truck delivered.. I mean it's beer, who doesn't love beer, beer isn't threatening...

Seriously though, I've said it in other threads on autonomy, why are we as humans so intent on making ourselves redundant and obsolete? What is the end goal?, where is the point at Wich we say, "oh, that's something that only humans should be able to do"?

Do we just stop at replacing drivers, how about the technicians? Should we have robot surgeons, chefs and lawyers? Autonomy is a slippery slope and noone seems to look at just how far is to far.

Given how fast autonomy and robotics are developing, is there anything that people can honestly say, "they'll never find a way to replace a human at doing (insert task here)

JohnRW1621 wrote: ....I'm pretty sure it is not legal to take a horse and buggy down US1 (Woodward Ave) any more. I assure you can not take a horse and buggy down I-75. Sure, there are country roads that still allow horse and buggy but there are places you can not go. Can you cross over to Windsor, ON from Detroit in any manor via horse and buggy? I expect similar in the future just replace horse and buggy with "self drive car".

You should check out the latest cover of Grass Fed Horsesports:

Huckleberry wrote: I also do not see the ownership model remaining in place - people will not, for the most part, own their own car for basic transportation just like they do not own their own plane.

The plane analogy doesn't hold up. People don't buy planes because they cost way too much, get used much less frequently, require hundreds of hours of training to operate safely, and also need specialized infrastructure (airports) to operate.

I think the ownership model will remain predominant. Many people seem to think autonomous vehicles will turn everything into Uber, but let's look at it a bit more closely.

1) Cost. Cars cost money because you need to build them and they wear out over time. That depreciation doesn't go away just because someone else owns the car, instead you pay for it per-ride instead of per-month (or all up front). If someone owns a car and drives it 12K miles a year, then making that vehicle an autonomous taxi doesn't reduce that depreciation. It actually makes it worse, because now the car isn't conveniently located at your house or office parking lot, but rather has to drive there to pick you up.

2) Convenience. People don't just use their cars as transportation, they also use them to store stuff that they want to have with them when they're out and about. I keep a jacket and umbrella in my car all the time, for example. I leave my phone charger in there, my "reusable shopping bags", etc. Think about infant/child/booster seats, for example.

3) Quality. Have you seen how nasty public transportation is, or how much rental cars get beat up? People abuse stuff that they don't own, especially if there's no one there to watch them. The first time an autonomous taxi shows up with the interior covered in vomit or racist graffiti down the side, people are going to rethink their decision not to own a car.

One of the reasons people use human-powered Uber today is so that they don't have to worry about parking, but with autonomous vehicles I don't have to worry about that either. I just tell the car to go park itself somewhere, and I'll call it to come pick me up when I need it. So what is it about autonomous Ubers that's going to kill the private ownership model? I can get all of the benefits of it by buying my own autonomous car, plus it costs less and is more convenient.

In reply to codrus:

Yes. I understand the negatives, and agree with you on most of them. Doesn't change the fact that it's coming.

You are offering negative hypotheticals. I am offering positive hypotheticals. That's all.

Note: I am NOT suggesting the transition will be a positive one. Scares the E36 M3 out of me (from a human perspective). I am however, accepting that it is coming (whether I like it or not), and looking for all the opportunities I can find inside of that reality.

Honestly, at this stage in the development, my opinion is that focusing on the theoretical downside is the metal gymnastics equivalent of playing ostrich and sticking my head in the sand. Sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling, "It won't happen, it won't happen" is not going to stop it from happening.

daeman wrote: I can't help but feel they made a very deliberate choice in making beer the item that the autonomous truck delivered.. I mean it's beer, who doesn't love beer, beer isn't threatening... Seriously though, I've said it in other threads on autonomy, why are we as humans so intent on making ourselves redundant and obsolete? What is the end goal?, where is the point at Wich we say, "oh, that's something that only humans should be able to do"? Do we just stop at replacing drivers, how about the technicians? Should we have robot surgeons, chefs and lawyers? Autonomy is a slippery slope and noone seems to look at just how far is to far. Given how fast autonomy and robotics are developing, is there anything that people can honestly say, "they'll never find a way to replace a human at doing (insert task here)

There is a good chance that the entire human race is going to fall under the "Peter Principle"

codrus wrote:

SVreX wrote: Cellphones went from extremely rare to hard to live without in less than 10 years. I don't believe autonomous cars will take several decades. The motivation for change will be irresistible.

You don't write software for a living, do you? Genuinely autonomous vehicles (as in the kind you would trust to take your child to school and then come home to park itself in the garage without any adult present) require strong AI, something that's been "10 years away" for the last 50 years.

So, the beer truck making a 120 mile trek and delivering 40,000 cans of beer while the human driver read a newspaper in the back of the sleeper cab is about 50 years away, right?