Hacker News Reader

Comment by PeterStuer | Hacker News Reader

"Self driving cars are much more likely to be public transport than individually owened"

I've only seen this as a 'just so' greenwash pr story from the automotive industry to offset the projected 300% increase in total road miles driven anually. Please explain why peole would be compelled to ditch their multidude of private cars just because they now come with a 24/7 free driver included?

View on HN

Indeed, that's the elephant in the room. Self driving cars by virtue of being self driving can be sent on trips by themselves without requiring the driver to be present. The presence of a driver is a limiting factor, once that one drops away there will be many more trips. Suddenly kids can use the car and all kinds of pick up and delivery jobs become cost effective in a way that they are not today.

Can’t wait for those human-less boxes rolling downtown carefree… what a fun time we’re gonna have painting and blasting their sensors.

Ah yes! Would love to know how the crowd that protests better public transit, pedestrian paths and bike lanes as “taking away space from cars” will respond to roads being further clogged with… empty cars?

We’re really going to spend billions and billions on further car infrastructure, more reduction in space-constrained cities towards pedestrian and bike infrastructure, and even the displacement of existing homes and communities for… empty cars?! If it weren’t so depressing, it’s a perfect indictment of the US’s car culture taken full circle.

To be fair, the current cars on the road are, on average, almost empty.

Don't know why you're being dv, I back this up:

- regarding my city (Paris) most sides are literally full of parked empty cars. I don't have the data but anywhere you go - apart the biggest boulevards and walkable very-inner-center - you'll see way more parked cars than driving ones. Indeed, 50% of space is allocated to cars while they represent 13% of the commutes [1].

- Vehicle occupancy was 1.5 in 2019 and is declining (US) [0].

0 https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/perso...

1 (fr) https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2016/11/30/a-pa...

> roads being further clogged with… empty cars

Presumably the car is going to pick someone up. That means it isn't parked being useless. If this starts working at scale, supply and demand will pull ridesharing costs down in a way that reduces ownership.

It might go somewhere to pick up a package.

The problem everybody is ignoring with self-driving cars is that roads already are too expensive to maintain. Self driving cars will require tighter upkeep because they have lower margins for error, ballooning already ludicrous budgets to maintain the six million mile roadway network. Humans can drive drunk on wet gravel in the dark, but a computer needs full GPS, lidar, radar, and motion sensing cameras just to follow well painted paved roads. When there is no downtime and roads are constantly being used they will wear down faster and the computers will cause more crashes. Drains and manholes sink, paint fades, shoulders crumble, curbs deform, and bridges crack. Accelerate this by three, maybe four times and the entire nation will go bankrupt within a decade trying to pay to keep everything running just so autonomous cars can stay the default.

Because owning a car is expensive. And owning a self-driving car is likely to be even more expensive. If you can still get the same convenience for a far lower cost by just using a taxi, why would you continue to own a car? (Also, this is something the automotive industry does not want, as it will reduce their sales substantially. This is something that is claimed by self-driving companies which are not also automotive companies, and most people who analyse the economics of self-driving, especially looking at which technologies which are more likely to succeed).

rcxdude 22 hours ago | parent | context | flag | on: Mercedes beats Tesla to autonomous driving in Cali...

"Because owning a car is expensive."

That hasn't stopped families from getting multiple cars thus far, so why should that change?

"And owning a self-driving car is likely to be even more expensive."

I sincerely doubt that. Just think of all the potential for selling services and preload deals on what is basically a rolling networked computer with the user literally captured inside. You might have to pay more if you want the non-add supported version or the one without the bundled subscriptions.

I can think of two reasons on the top of my head:

1. Renting a car will become much more convenient. I can summon a car instead of having to search one 3 blocks away.

2. Selling a car with an L5-autopilot will have to include a manufacturer warranty/insurance in cases of crashes resulting from a fault of the autopilot. Tesla is already charging 10k (or 15k?) for their shitty self-driving-gimmick without a warranty. I expect L5-autopilots to cost much more and even come at a yearly subscription (which basically offsets the insurance and the required continued development). I don't expect the average person will (be able to) pay that subscription, when the far more reasonable solution is to rent a car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com