|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 1. Given that electric cars are more expensive to manufacture than gasoline cars, how do the economics of a dumb gasoline car compare to those of a smart electric car? What, if any, is the crossover point?
Depending on how you compare you'll get a breakeven at around 5-10 years (give or take depending on whether you're pro or against  ). The problem with the electric car is that the second hand value will be crap since the battery pack will need to be exchanged after that.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 2. At what stage does it become more economical for the individual to have one smart car, rather than two dumb cars?
Here you have serious economy in numbers. Smart cars cost a lot to develop, but not much extra to produce.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: 3. At present only a small percentage of cars are electric. What happens to the demand for electricity (and therefore - to its price) when most cars are electric?
This is an interesting one. People are of the general belief that electric cars are efficient, and the answer is: it depends on how you calculate it.
A synchronous electric engine has an efficiency above 90%, LiIon batteries 86% according to Tesla, the grid is at 92%.
So far all is well, but then comes the problem. Electric cars would be an additional drain the electric grid. And since all efficient power sources such as hydro power is more or less already built out.
So the most probable power source would actually be coal power at an efficiency of about 33%. All in all an efficiency of around 24%. Still better than petrol, but not at all by as much as some people claim.
I'm fully aware that there will be people that claim that all added electric power will come from wind and sun, but it's not overly probable in most countries.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I submit that these "side issues" will tend to dominate people's choices at least as much as congestion.
Personally I think the vast majority will make their choices purely on economy and comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a stupid idea. I'd rather focus on telecommuting and innovative ways of connecting people.
|
|
|
|
|
Great for work, but what about going to the store? The bar? The Theater? The Mall? Going to a friend's place? Going on a date?
The real world isn't a Turn Based Strategy Game. You don't have to decide on one course of research for the entire nation at the cost of all others. There's plenty of people working on telecommuting and other communication technologies, and the skills needed for making a self driving car are different from the skills needed for those technologies. Self driving cars are far from a "stupid idea". Any problems with them are offset by the problems of the other options. Everything will have problems. Nothing is perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
When someone can demonstrate a self driving car that can get round some of the cities in the far east, despite the random nature of motor cycle riders and other "drivers" then I might consider trying one out.
When it can safely navigate through fast moving, i.e. twice the speed limit, traffic with cars crossing two or more lanes without signalling or checking mirrors, the autonomous car will have matured into a usable device.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not simply make cars that are immobilised if there's nobody in them? It is after all what happens now!
Technologically it cannot be that difficult. Exceptions could be made for registered public transport vehicles (taxi and bus equivalents) if that's thought desirable.
|
|
|
|
|
Partly because you can park'em better, and more densely, if there is no-one in 'em! No need for enough space for humans to get in and out.
So you could have large underground automated car parks in strategic locations instead of parking randomly all over the city (and having to find a place first).
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure that would save as much space as you think; maybe 12 cars where now you get 10? You'd still need room for them to manoeuvre into and out of the spaces and you'd still need 'parking' spots on all the streets so that people could get out when they arrive and in the when they summon the car (I assume you're not expecting people to run behind the moving vehicle and enter when they've caught it up?) Most cities where congestion is truly a problem already have a gamut of good old multi-story car parks, park and ride schemes, and limited street waiting times already. I can't see them forking out extra just to squeeze a few more in.
|
|
|
|
|
Car parks are very inefficient: For every parking bay there is another full bay area for the manoeuvring lane between facing rows (any less than 1 1/2 car lengths is too tight for most people, and 2 times is normal) If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again.
We aren't talking about squeezing a few more in, we are talking about double or treble the density, which with the price of land in modern cities being astronomical is a major incentive to the parking companies.
The car drives you to a drop off point very close to your destination, then heads off to a queuing storage facility until it's needed. There may be a short delay in getting to the drop off point at busy times, but that will be a lot less than the time to find a parking space or walk from the car park today.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
So who manages this queuing system? Who's going to buy a car that can be controlled by any Tom, Dick, or Hal? One that's going to be started and driven round the block ten, twenty, or more times a day without your knowledge or involvement? All the fuss about MS monitoring W10 and you think the public's going to just hand over the keys to their brand spanking new cutting edge babies to some oik or computer at the parking facility? You really think that human beings are going to suddenly learn to play well with others?
|
|
|
|
|
That's a whole other question, but basically you won't get a choice in the matter.
As soon as self driving cars are mass market, the choice of "who drives?" will be legislated out of your hands on safety grounds (the same way we are forced to wear seatbelts, have airbags, and not text while driving). Once cars decide, it will not be long at all until they coordinate via a civic system which tells them where to go for maximum efficiency (and minimum energy consumption - even electric vehicles contribute to emissions when the electricity is produced). And that will tell them which park to go to, which queue to join, and so forth, in concert with the parking company systems - and probably partly paid for from the parking fees and/or civic car tax.
The kids born now will probably be horrified to think that you were allowed to drive your own car in traffic when they are old enough to "drive"! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Why in the world would you want to own a car that drives itself? Just pick me up, take me to work, drop me off and then go pick up someone else that wants to go somewhere. If you're not busy drive to a maintenance facility or to a parking lot that is not in a crowded urban area. After work take me to my favorite bar and again drop me off. After a few drinks come and get me and take me home. Did I mention that I'm blind, old, hearing impaired, young, lost my license, sleepy, a terrible driver, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Not everyone lives somewhere they can count on being able to order a car and have it show up in a minute or two. If you live and work here[^] then there's little reason to own a car; if you live here it's another story.
I'd also be worried about peak capacity problems; similar to ordinary car rental or hourly services like ZipCar where they only buy enough cars to cover "normal" demand levels; but unless you book well in advance forget about getting one at peak demand times because it's not economical to buy enough cars to cover those periods. And then what if you're doing more than one thing on your outing that requires bringing stuff along. If it's your car, you can just lock all the stuff you only need for Stop B in the trunk while you're at A, C, and D. An on demand rental company is at best going to charge you a lot more since they can't let anyone else use the car while you're at all your other stops; at worst you'll either have to detour home or drag a bunch of stuff around to every other destination on your trip because they won't let you hold the car all day.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I must have missed something. The original post was about congestion. If you live where you indicated I'm guessing congestion might not be an issue.
And I didn't say you could call up and get a car in a minute. Maybe you would order in advance.
You know there are lots of people who don't have cars and they have to use buses, taxi and trains to get around (or walk).
To me the central advantage is over the current system. Millions of people get in their cars and drive to work at the same time because mass transit doesn't serve them (too expensive), they need to drive somewhere once they are at work, they don't like being around other people, etc.
Once they get there they have to do something with their car.
Rush "hour" actually lasts a long time.
So to me one car could bring one (or more people to work) and then go and get someone else. They could go somewhere else to park if need be.
My point is that millions of commuter (but not necessarily all) cold benefit from this type of service.
|
|
|
|
|
bleahy48 wrote: I must have missed something. The original post was about congestion. If you live where you indicated I'm guessing congestion might not be an issue.
I'm not disputing that for many people if the price is right, that a shared system might be preferable, however
Quote: Why in the world would you want to own a car that drives itself?
Doesn't have any locational constraints attached; and concerns about covering peak seasonal (eg holidays) demand aren't limited by region. If anything, I'd think they'd be worse in congested urban areas where a greater share of the demand would be from people who normally do find mass transit an acceptable way to get around; but don't want to try carrying a hot dish or large bag of presents on it. Or just have family living outside the region where mass transit is convenient to use.
PS I live about an hour north of where the map's centered. My boss lives outside that town; I picked his home town because I knew it'd center on a large expanse of mostly empty farmland.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Actually what I'd like is to own a self driving car. Get my driving time back, and let other people enjoy the logistics and availability problems that I'm sure will cause headaches as they roll out. Once standard solutions/accepted levels of availability are stabilized I'll reconsider my options.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
2050 - Ever since Google bought McDonalds my self driving car seems to route past one on every trip. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'll stick to the country!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: If you don't have to get people in and out then cars can not only be parked far closer to each other side-to-side, but they can also be parked end to end in short (say 10 cars deep) queues. When a car is needed, up to nine others also drive out, and then re-enter the queuing system to park again.
To an extent this is already happening with dumb cars and valets. The hospital where my mom works has had some high density staff lots where the staff park cars end to end with just enough room for them to get in/out (maybe only on one side if they park alternate rows in opposing directions). AIUI they fill the lots by putting one car in each column before putting a second in any of them and take advantage of staggered working hours to minimize the shuffle; but if you're working daylight and need to leave mid-shift you'll probably need to wait while they move a bunch of cars to get yours free.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
That's not a technical issue, merely a legal.
And as I'm seeing it, quite a probable one too. As long as it isn't a closed system there needs to be safety measures.
|
|
|
|
|
I predict more mysterious political and economical car 'accidents'.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
And yet another target for hackers.
|
|
|
|
|
All the author(s) does in that article is demonstrate is lack of understanding of a how a driverless society would actually work. Ownership would actually be ridiculous. You simply tell the system (not the car) where and when you need a vehicle, and a car shows up. The car you used to get you to work would be in use by other people, or parked somewhere waiting, especially in off peak hours, like work hours. Furthermore, a smart system would be able to automatically and dynamically create carpooling routes, reducing the number of vehicles but also ensuring that everyone gets where they need to get to at the right time. Ironically, there would actually be "less" congestion. The model the author describes is based on the (hopefully) soon to be archaic concept of "ownership" and "owner-vehicle" single relationship. If think of vehicles as a system (much like a subway or bus) then you start to see the real benefits of a driverless vehicle.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
And all your response shows is that you don't understand human beings. Since when has being ridiculous stopped anyone doing anything? Of course people are going to want to own their own vehicles and have control of where it goes and when! Car owning is already ridiculous in the most congested cities. It's demonstrably faster and cheaper to use mass transit systems in such places but people still buy cars and still sit in jams.
In any case, even if the technological bugs are all sorted out this afternoon it will take years, probably decades, to sort out the legal issues, and then years, probably decades more before there is anything like enough self-drive vehicles to be on the streets to make a dial-a-ride service practical. Private ownership is bound to lead the way and once it takes hold it will be a devil to shift.
|
|
|
|
|
People buy and drive their own cars (especially second cars) to get to work because it appears to be the best alternative.
If I take all the costs of owning that second car and can spend less money on a car that someone else maintains and that allows me to read, sleep, work, etc. for the 90+ minutes I spend commuting I believe that would become the best alternative.
Certainly not for everyone but for the majority of people.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I see with having one car for multiple people is I wouldn't want to get into a car that some of the people I have encountered have used. What about smoking, food, personal hygiene issues? All of these wouldn't go away with driver less cars, so from my perspective I don't see personal vehicles vanishing with a driver less solution. I know I certainly wouldn't like to share a car with someone doing something illegal or illicit, and the fact is, you wouldn't know who used it before you and what dangers/residue/odor were left behind by the previous user.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
