Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday May 12 2017, @06:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the insurance-deduction dept.

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=175144&CultureCode=en

The average consumer would be willing to pay $4,900 more for a car that had self-driving technologies, and $3,500 more for crash avoidance, according to a new study published in Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies.

The researchers, from Cornell University in the US, also found a big difference in what people would be willing to pay: some would stretch to more than $10,000 for automation, while others would pay nothing at all. Car manufacturers should consider this as technologies develop and give people flexible options.

Today it's possible to buy a car that can park itself, stay in lane and maintain a constant speed. The technology is developing fast and many companies are already testing self-driving cars; it's likely we will soon see fully automated cars on the market. But will people be willing to pay for this technology and how can manufacturers and policy makers make sure it is rolled out to our roads smoothly? This is what Dr. Ricardo Daziano and his colleagues wanted to find out.

Are consumers willing to pay to let cars drive for them? Analyzing response to autonomous vehicles (DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2017.03.003) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 12 2017, @07:20PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday May 12 2017, @07:20PM (#508806) Journal

    people often made 10% of car (if you can call the communist distopian vehicle a car) price in a given year. I think making 70% odd percent is much much better.

    ??

    I'm confused, because literally your statement says you made 10% of a car price in a year. So, if the car costs $50k, you made $5k/year. In such a scenario, I'd agree that making 70% of car price ($35k) would be a LOT better. (And that doesn't seem to very different from what I argued, i.e., that people should be spending less for cars compared to their income.)

    Except those aren't the numbers from my post. My post was saying that the car price was 70% of annual income. Sticking with a $50k car, that would imply an annual income of of roughly $71k. The website I linked recommends paying 1/10th of your annual income for a car. So, to afford a $50k car, you should be earning $500k.

    Not sure how exactly that interacts with your communist u/dys-topia exactly.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2