Why you have (probably) already bought your last car
 

Why you have (probably) already bought your last car

By Justin RowlattBBC News

Continues



https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fit...d8b9b8b7fd.jpg

Driverless taxis - the transport of the future?

I enjoy a little involvement with the driving experience every now and again. My wife, however, loves the idea of a self-driving car. I tell her if she had one of those, she would not need me around anymore.

She has not stopped smiling since...

Troll lolol

* chuckle *

Has anyone spotted the car in the pic below?

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fit...72259a71bc.jpg

Pretty remarkable the transformation in ~15 yrs.

What's going to fuel the transformation stated above is going to be cost. People will always pick the cheaper way.

Who is going to pay to service and maintain these public cars? Who will keep them clean? People are filthy pigs. I wouldn't ride in most people's cars now, and with nobody responsible for them who will care for these "public cars"?

Add in costs of repairs due to vandalism, and what will these things ACTUALLY cost? Relying on Uber or Lyft isn't cheap either.

I find the idea that people are just going to willingly give up freedom of movement to be ludicrous. The motorcar offered real advantages over a horse. Once Ford developed the Model T, a car could be purchased for less than a horse and buggy, it didn't have to be fed when it wasn't being used. The motor car freed people from dependence on train schedules and allowed ordinary people freedom to travel. So now, we're going to willingly surrender all that for some dystopian future?

I'm hoping you read the article? The article points out some pretty good arguments as to why this vision is believed. You see how Uber and others have taken off, right? There will be Ubers in the future running this four-wheeled network. Cleaning the cars would be the lest of their issues. I'm betting there will be cams everywhere too. This will be cause some want the cheapest ride they can get. Which means picking up others on your journey. Obviously there will be the option to use the car yourself. It's just going to cost you more.

One point they might have problems with is people are going to want to drive themselves. I'm thinking the price of doing so is going to change alot of people's minds.

Is this like where they said we'd have flying cars in every drive-way by now?

I saw an article that mentioned that depending on where the battery was made, an electric car can actually have a higher carbon footprint than a comparable diesel. This is because of the creation of the lithium ion battery takes a lot of resources. If the battery is created in a country that relies more heavily on coal, it can take several years and thousands of miles to break even to the carbon footprint of a comparable IC car. I only mention this because the article mentioned electric cars.

Also how would you like to swap all your luggage/cargo over to another vehicle because the automated vehicle you called ran out of juice?

It's an interesting idea, but I think 20 years is an optimistic timeline.

Maybe 10 years ago, I would of called the statement total ridiculousness.
And rate of change, the pace of change, and even the exact direction of change is hard to predict or know. BUT....

I believe things are changing.
I think we are slowly moving out of the golden age of the personally owned ICE vehicle.

I think alternatives, in the form of electric vehicles, hybrids, will gain in acceptance and adoption.

And I see a subtle but strong shift in the whole thinking about owning a vehicle.
I think this younger generation is far more inclined to NOT own a personal vehicle. Vehicle sharing, on demand rentals, or utilizing public transportation is becoming much more accepted and popular, not based on whether you can afford a vehicle, but just as a matter of choice.

It's NOT all going to disappear over night. I don't expect to step out to a sidewalk welcomed by a self driving taxi. But I do think things are changing.

I do think if I live long enough? I could be telling younger people about a strange and mysterious time, when automobiles were HUGE, ran on gasoline, and everyone owned one, or at least wanted to own one.

That's not a bad deal for people that use it. $15 max on the rides and the user pays the difference is fair.

Tell you the truth, I have yet to take a ride with any company. I looked into becoming a driver once with Uber, but I was really taken back by giving them all my info and they gave nothing in return! I never even was given a rep to go back to for follow up. Just call up and give info.

Yes, I read the article. They'll take my car when they pry my cold dead hands from the steering wheel. I'm an old man, with little left to look forward to. Nobody wants to hear the music I play and women don't want to have sex with me. Driving or riding my motorcycle is about the only enjoyment I have left and now you want to take that away from me, too? There will be trouble if you try.

Back when I was little, my parents drummed the mantra into me: "don't EVER give a ride to a stranger!" Now Uber and Lyft are monetizing doing just that. To me, the same safety concerns still apply. You don't know who you're getting into that car with.

I wish I could just give a thumbs up or "like" your post, but instead I will just quote it for ALL to see again. :)

I may not be as old, I'm in my mid 40's, but share your sentiment.

Ugh.

Old people are the absolute worst. "I'm old & miserable so I'll make damn sure my impact in my last years is as negative as possible!"

I have a MAJOR problem with the current idea, shared by many, that it's OK to impose your wishes or lifestyle on others.

You don't want a car...don't have one. You don't want a gun...don't have one. You don't want to eat meat...don't eat meat. You want a pink house...paint your house pink. You want to wear flip flops...wear flip flops. I don't care what others do, but don't tell me what to do.

This comes to mind...

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fit...97805f9e53.jpg

Please tell that to conservatives that for decades have:
-Sought to control a woman's access to birth control, abortions, what they can wear, etc.
-Opposed LGBTQ folks who just wish to love who they love
-Fought non-white folks and their wishes to live a safe life with the same opportunities as white folks
-Fought to force prayer into public schools
-Paid sports organizations to force the national anthem down our throats
-Outlawed drugs but legalized others, seemingly at random
-Fought to limit access to voting for those whose views they don't agree with

Last I checked no liberal politicians have fought to ban any of the stuff you mentioned, my list is comprised of real things that have happened & are actively happening now.

Controlling others is not a new idea. And the ones you're accusing of trying to control others are not the ones trying to do it.

OH NO MAH GUNS......so you can control both your life & my own? Thanks, I really wanted a crazy reactionary with the power of lethal force to control my life.

Sadly the idea of conservative and liberal have taken on different meanings through the years. I grew up a liberal, because I believe in the freedom to choose everything. Now liberals want to control things just as much as conservatives. I don't personally side with either any more. Too many hidden agendas.

What happened to the actual liberals that don't want the government to control anything? Like, take our money, pave the roads, give us libraries, provide education, and stay out of most of the rest of everything else.

As for the original topic...until the liability side of driverless cars is figured out, I don't think we'll see it happen. Too much risk with half the population looking for a reason to sue someone.

Those people still exist, its just that the democratic party has to cover a way, way more varied base than the Republicans. A republican will vote for a republican no matter what they say/do (Trump is anything but a fiscal conservative/small government type, but he's still approved of by 90%+ of Republican voters), the democrats don't have it that easy. They are largely comprised of neo-liberals/centrists (HRC, Obama, etc., people who seem to love going to war, do little else to make large progressive change) but also attempt to appease liberals (probably the people you're speaking of, though I think at this point most liberals don't want guns because they're being used to kill way too many folks), socialists, communists, etc. (they always fail to appease these groups). That's a flaw of the two party system/electoral college, to get to 270 EC votes you can really only have two parties competing, get rid of the EC and maybe we can have more parties & actually represent the interests of a lot more folks.

That's probably a bit rambly/stream of consciousness-y.

It is being worked on. I sat in on a graduate level course at a school I'm considering (a large, well-respected research based state school) & the whole semester project is based on changing policy/planning around autonomous vehicles. It is happening, just behind the scenes for now, until true autonomous vehicles are ready for the spotlight.

Agree!

There is also a group working on legislation to ensure the rights of people that wish to continue driving themselves vs solely autonomous travel. I hope both parties succeed.

Aww yiss.

I hope they succeed, but I don't think it is something we'll have to worry about too much in our lifetimes. Non-autonomous vehicles can't be banned until it is economically viable & it will likely be quite some time before those vehicles work themselves down into affordability for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum. I hope they succeed, AV would be great for cities, limiting need for parking and hopefully making cities places where people walk, rather than drive.

But yeah, cars should be around for a while yet as we know them.

In my dreamworld, I see some kind of system where the Interstates are basically autonomous. Like you drive your otherwise self driven car onto the entrance ramp and then a "system" takes over and pilots your personal vehicle at HIGH speeds with every car being controlled by a central system. Get the "system" right and cars could travel and a much higher speed safely.

They would then disconnect from the "system" at the exit ramp to allow freedom of travel to anywhere.

Maybe I watched too much Jetson's as a kid.

Jetsons good/bad future. Didn't they basically destroy the planet to need to live in space? lol

https://www.curbed.com/a/texas-calif...nto-california

I wholly recommend this read.

I have this same thought as well! My vision involves using a large magnetic to "hold" the car to a conveyor belt platform along the highway. When you reach your exit, reverse polarity and shoot the car off.

That is a great read, for me especially as it centers on Sacramento and mentions Davis. I spent many years at UCD for college and always thought it was an anomaly for being so bike-centric (having grown up in SoCal). A lot of great points brought up, especially regarding the lower-income areas that use several vehicles due to lack of a reliable mode of transportation.

These articles always forget how people ACTUALLY USE their cars. Primarily, the fact that you leave stuff in your car!

I live in a 3rd-floor condo and have to park a couple of blocks away. So I leave things in my car, such as: Golf clubs. Umbrella. Extra pair of bowling shoes. Sometimes, bowling balls. Folding music stands (2). Tripod. Stuff like that.

If I don't own my car and just take one of these fleet vehicles, that means I can't leave stuff in my car anymore, and have to carry it all back to my condo every time I use it. (Even if it's dropping me off at the door, I still have to unload and take the stuff upstairs.)

Your mileage may vary, but tell me: Do you leave stuff in the car, or do you take every last thing back home with you every night?

Urb

Thanks for posting this article. I regret taking so long to read it! I lived here in Sacramento when there was practically NO bicycle infrastructure around (mid 80s) . Yes there was some shoulder area around for biking, but nothing like there is today! They turned around the downtown area of Sac (they call it Midtown) with very little money. Currently it's very easy getting around via bicycle. They put in a bicycle infrastructure and did some things for traffic calming and it has REALLY paid off. The before and after is rather amazing. I remember some streets were like raceways. Three lanes going one way. Now the neighborhood is rather welcoming to get around via walking and riding.

The article mentions reducing vehicle miles traveled—what transportation planners call VMT. The target is daily average of 1.6 miles. They sited one example of dropping off the kids via bicycles or having them be able to ride their bikes as opposed to driving them to school. I don't have kids, but I always suggested riding a bike when you go see your doctor. I'm a diabetic, so I see my doc regularly. Whatever is found, walk or bike for example, it's probably going to be more healthy for the person.

(BTW, if you're wondering, I lived here in Sac from about '75 to '90 and came back '17. I've always been into bicycling too. The last 9 yrs getting around via bicycle and subway system down in the LA area. The last year or so I've been getting back into the car ownership thing.)

The only thing in my car right now is a broken TV I have to take to an electronics recycling area.

If you walk more, you'd just carry the umbrella when you leave your place.

I'm glad to read it works nicely for actual residents & that the changes noted in the article can be so clearly seen & felt. I think that's where public projects fail a lot, if locals can't feel a change, they won't support further work especially when the stuff is expensive.

I live in Milwaukee & they're about to open a 'streetcar' that they've spent millions of dollars & years tearing up the roads. Every suburban doofus who NEVER goes into the city is stoked about it (per my anecdotal sample size of my exurban coworkers), every person I know in the city that isn't one of the few wealthy people right along the streetcar's extremely limited path (it only covers the richest parts of the city) is completely against it. That money should've been spent on improving pedestrian/pedal traffic safety, Milwaukee's footprint is tiny and that should be taken advantage of.

Holly crap! That system is 2 miles long and costed over 60 mil per mile! Granted you might have some pretty bad winter weather, but seems like it would have worked better going another route? I guess if there's plans on expanding greatly, things would work out. I'm hoping they did something for a bicycle/ped infrastructure.

They tried the street car thing in DC too and it's also been a colossal waste of money.