There are a lot of motivations for self-driving cars. Safety. People get tired, old, and can't look in all directions, and the don't have reaction speeds in the ms. Probably a lot less road rage...
There are a lot of motivations for self-driving cars.
Safety. People get tired, old, and can't look in all directions, and the don't have reaction speeds in the ms. Probably a lot less road rage and adherence to laws, too.
Freeing up time. The average U.S.ian spends ~200-330 hours a year commuting. If that could be spent on anything enjoyable or productive that would be a lot of people hours reclaimed.
Sharing. Most people use their car a slim fraction of the time. You could subsidize the cost/increase efficiency by having fewer cars per person. Not that carpooling/renting can't exist other ways, but its easier if the cars are self-driving (and not having to worry about parking in a dense area is a related plus)
Logistics costs. Valid labor/automation concerns aside, a lot of things depend on goods getting transported and would benefit from it being cheaper/safe to do ~24/7 runs.
Coordination. In some distant future, you might see an end to traffic by all vehicles on the road communicating when they'll start or stop, or planning routes to minimize travel times on a group level.
Autonomy. An elderly person losing their ability to drive may lose their ability to socialize or take care of themself. Partly why they may continue driving even when its no longer safe.
Form factor. Cars are designed in part because they need to be used by a human. Being automated opens up different designs that might be more efficient, from basics like no steering wheel to something like a "recumbent" car.
Self-driving cars are a IMO an essential part of ridding people of the plight of car ownership. Why? Because given our current infrastructure, for many people, occasional car usage is...
Self-driving cars are a IMO an essential part of ridding people of the plight of car ownership. Why? Because given our current infrastructure, for many people, occasional car usage is non-negotiable. Do you want to haul your monthly big-box haul of nonperishable foods home on the bus? What about trips into/from/across locations where public transit isn't great? Well, you need a car, at least sometimes.
If you need a car sometimes, you have a few options.
buying a damn car. This means, in a sunk cost non-fallacy that the marginal cost of using the car for trips that could be done differently is now reduced: Once there's a car in your driveway, it is often cheaper to use it rather than public transit, even if the average total cost of using the car is higher than public transit.
Using car sharing services. This is a good solution, but it comes with a few drawbacks: The next car sharing station might be a decent distance by foot away, leading to unnecessary foot and car trips between your home and the station. More importantly, people will hopefully get increasingly fearful of operating 2-ton death machinery if they don't practice doing so a lot. I live this life. I don't feel particularly comfortable at the wheel. At this point, the amount of transportation I "consume" is quite a bit suppressed from where it would be, because I don't like driving. I want my car to drive itself, so I don't have to. Bonus points if it drops be and my groceries off at my doorstep, instead of a block over. Once my car drives itself, we can talk about regulatory action to push the price up to a point that is in line with climate and city planning goals.
Using a taxi. These are, at least in my part of the world, prohibitively expensive. We're talking an order of magnitude more expensive than car sharing.
Use a self-driving car service, at least in the future. Bonus points because it's as convenient as a taxi, while being substantially cheaper.
It should be noted that of the above 4 options, #1 results in not using available public transit, at least as much as would be reasonable, while the other options result in using public transit as often as reasonably possible. Options #2 and #3 have substantial downsides. If you're in the FuckCars crowd, freeing people from the pressure to own a car should be paramount. And self-driving cars will help with that. I do accept though that they make driving more convenient than it is now, which will at the same time increase car utilization. That should be a factor in the price of cars and car usage, and I'd argue should be treated as independent of self-driving tech.
Yes, I see self-driving cars as reducing the need for car ownership substantially, particularly for cities. I'll add that there are some situations when I expect it will still be necessary. One...
Yes, I see self-driving cars as reducing the need for car ownership substantially, particularly for cities.
I'll add that there are some situations when I expect it will still be necessary. One reason is the danger from wildfires in some rural areas. People need to evacuate on short notice, they will want to bring a lot of their stuff with them, and in an emergency like that, shared services like rental cars and taxis might not be available due to high demand.
A hurricane evacuation seems like a similar situation.
Some people will be able to make arrangements with others ahead of time. Maybe there could be emergency services that could do the job, though that seems more practical and necessary for cities than rural areas. (In part because too many cars leaving at once can cause freeways to turn into parking lots.)
Emergency use wouldn't require nearly as many cars as we have. A car in every garage that's not used much is quite different from multiple cars per household that get used every day.
I think if you're not commuting to work by car every weekday or on the road because of your job, e.g. sales, self driving is not that big of a deal. Sure, it will be nice for long vacation drives....
I think if you're not commuting to work by car every weekday or on the road because of your job, e.g. sales, self driving is not that big of a deal. Sure, it will be nice for long vacation drives. But that is maximum a few times per year.
Mercedes-Benz scored another self-driving victory, and on Tesla's former home turf, after being granted the first authorization in the state of California "to sell or lease vehicles with an automated driving system to the public," albeit with very strict restrictions.
The permission slip was granted for Mercedes-Benz's DRIVE PILOT system, a Society of Automotive Engineers level 3 automated system that, unlike Tesla's level-2 Autopilot and other competing driver assist systems, can actually be classified as one that's doing the driving - most of the time, although you'll still need to be behind the wheel.
I don't see true full self-driving being available for a long time. What's being offered now is a driver convenience but in actuality is quite far from being a truly autonomous vehicle which can...
I don't see true full self-driving being available for a long time. What's being offered now is a driver convenience but in actuality is quite far from being a truly autonomous vehicle which can take a non-driver anywhere they need to go.
Edit to add: I'm thinking timescale of tens of years until cars don't need driving.
There are a lot of motivations for self-driving cars.
Self-driving cars are a IMO an essential part of ridding people of the plight of car ownership. Why? Because given our current infrastructure, for many people, occasional car usage is non-negotiable. Do you want to haul your monthly big-box haul of nonperishable foods home on the bus? What about trips into/from/across locations where public transit isn't great? Well, you need a car, at least sometimes.
If you need a car sometimes, you have a few options.
It should be noted that of the above 4 options, #1 results in not using available public transit, at least as much as would be reasonable, while the other options result in using public transit as often as reasonably possible. Options #2 and #3 have substantial downsides. If you're in the FuckCars crowd, freeing people from the pressure to own a car should be paramount. And self-driving cars will help with that. I do accept though that they make driving more convenient than it is now, which will at the same time increase car utilization. That should be a factor in the price of cars and car usage, and I'd argue should be treated as independent of self-driving tech.
This comment has been adapted from parts of a previous one on the topic
Yes, I see self-driving cars as reducing the need for car ownership substantially, particularly for cities.
I'll add that there are some situations when I expect it will still be necessary. One reason is the danger from wildfires in some rural areas. People need to evacuate on short notice, they will want to bring a lot of their stuff with them, and in an emergency like that, shared services like rental cars and taxis might not be available due to high demand.
A hurricane evacuation seems like a similar situation.
Some people will be able to make arrangements with others ahead of time. Maybe there could be emergency services that could do the job, though that seems more practical and necessary for cities than rural areas. (In part because too many cars leaving at once can cause freeways to turn into parking lots.)
Emergency use wouldn't require nearly as many cars as we have. A car in every garage that's not used much is quite different from multiple cars per household that get used every day.
I think if you're not commuting to work by car every weekday or on the road because of your job, e.g. sales, self driving is not that big of a deal. Sure, it will be nice for long vacation drives. But that is maximum a few times per year.
I don't see true full self-driving being available for a long time. What's being offered now is a driver convenience but in actuality is quite far from being a truly autonomous vehicle which can take a non-driver anywhere they need to go.
Edit to add: I'm thinking timescale of tens of years until cars don't need driving.