What do you think about self-driving cars?

[Doon frae Troon]

Some say..........
In 2 or 3 generations, most people won't own a car, they'll just call for one or book one when they need one.
Press a buttons on an app and a driverless 'taxi' picks you up and takes you to work/home/pub/golf course etc.
No need for huge car parks, driveways, double yellow lines, mots, road tax. insurance etc.

Fine if you live in York but a long wait if you live in the middle of Rannoch Moor..

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Some say..........
In 2 or 3 generations, most people won't own a car, they'll just call for one or book one when they need one.
Press a buttons on an app and a driverless 'taxi' picks you up and takes you to work/home/pub/golf course etc.
No need for huge car parks, driveways, double yellow lines, mots, road tax. insurance etc.

its an attractive scenario, but I think cars will still be owned. The problem with ordering a car is when it doesn't turn up. The one time it doesn't is when it is vital that it does. Sod's law.😀
Knowing your car is there is not too important until you start to think about it

 

[bobmac]

its an attractive scenario, but I think cars will still be owned. The problem with ordering a car is when it doesn't turn up. The one time it doesn't is when it is vital that it does. Sod's law.😀
Knowing your car is there is not too important until you start to think about it

Why would it not turn up?
I agree, there will always be people who will own cars but when you consider how long you use your car per day/week/year, it's not a lot.
Someone once said
''90% of cars aren't used 90% of the time''
I'll bet that's not far off.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Why would it not turn up?
I agree, there will always be people who will own cars but when you consider how long you use your car per day/week/year, it's not a lot.
Someone once said
''90% of cars aren't used 90% of the time''
I'll bet that's not far off.

"Why would it not turn up?"
Because it isn't you that ensures it's available. And the person /firm who is responsible is not the one who is highly or vitally inconvenienced or worse.

Sure, they may apologise and offer an excuse which may or may not be valid but it doesn't change the fact.
If the guarantee of being mobile when you want to wasn't important then the majority of people now would be using taxis.
(And if they did, they would be a lot cheaper.)
But they are not. And it isn't because they enjoy driving. It's because they need to be in control.
Silly little example. - You need a driverless car which can accommodate your golf clubs etc for an important match. Up turns a car which can't take them.
"Sorry, sir, our original car broke down.This is all we have available"

Bear in mind, you are advocating a scenario where you don't have your own car to fall back on. It's your taxi or nothing.

 

[CB11ACD]

The owned vs shared debate is one of the biggest in this sector at the moment.

I think that there is room for both to exist side by side, there will be those that want to own their own car and if they can afford to they will. Some won't be able to aford a self-driving car and so will maybe rely on a shared service for the predictable daily routine use like commuting and weekly shopping but might have a driven car for less frequent use.

You could also potentially offset the high ownership cost by leasing it during work hours as a taxi service, delivery service etc when its not in use.

If you live on a farm or in the countryside, then you are proabbly more likely to own the car. If you live in a city center where you need to pay for a parking space if you own a car, then you are liekly to use the shared model.

 

[bobmac]

Bear in mind, you are advocating a scenario where you don't have your own car to fall back on. It's your taxi or nothing.

I wasn't talking about next week or next year or 10 years time, I said 2-3 generations in the future when attitudes may have changed

 

[Swinglowandslow]

The owned vs shared debate is one of the biggest in this sector at the moment.

I think that there is room for both to exist side by side, there will be those that want to own their own car and if they can afford to they will. Some won't be able to aford a self-driving car and so will maybe rely on a shared service for the predictable daily routine use like commuting and weekly shopping but might have a driven car for less frequent use.

You could also potentially offset the high ownership cost by leasing it during work hours as a taxi service, delivery service etc when its not in use.

If you live on a farm or in the countryside, then you are proabbly more likely to own the car. If you live in a city center where you need to pay for a parking space if you own a car, then you are liekly to use the shared model.

Hmmm
At the moment, it is far more expensive to go everywhere by taxi, than it is to own your own car.
That is , if you take into account every journey you make with your car, and what you carry in it.
Do you really think that will change when the cars are driverless?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I wasn't talking about next week or next year or 10 years time, I said 2-3 generations in the future when attitudes may have changed

Or when your golf clubs are shorter!😀😀
Cheers

 

[Dibby]

Hmmm
At the moment, it is far more expensive to go everywhere by taxi, than it is to own your own car.
That is , if you take into account every journey you make with your car, and what you carry in it.
Do you really think that will change when the cars are driverless?

Interesting comment, never thought about this much, but theoretically, it should not be so if there is no driver to pay, and the taxi company doesn't make an unreasonable margin. The fixed costs like depreciation, insurance etc should be less for your share of usage, and the variable costs per time\distance like servicing and maintenance should be the same. In the current taxi model, it's the drivers pay, companies profit and (most critically in my opinion) the fact in most cases the driver owns the taxi so it's still effectively idle when he isn't working or making personal use.