SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Barclays PLC analyst Brian Johnson predicts that U.S. automobile sales will drop 40% within the next 25 years due to disruption caused by driverless technology, and that vehicle ownership rates will be cut in half as families move to having just one car:
Large-volume automakers "would need to shrink dramatically to survive," Johnson wrote. "GM and Ford would need to reduce North American production by up to 68 percent and 58 percent, respectively."
Self-driving cars have become a frequent topic for auto executives as the technology for the vehicles emerges. The market for autonomous technology will grow to $42 billion by 2025 and self-driving cars may account for a quarter of global auto sales by 2035, according to Boston Consulting Group. By 2017, partially autonomous vehicles will become available in "large numbers," the firm said in a report in April.
Johnson's report, entitled "Disruptive Mobility," contends that the shift to cars that drive themselves will upend the auto industry. "While extreme, a historical precedent exists," Johnson wrote. "Horses once filled the many roles that cars fill today, but as the automobile came along, the population of horses dropped sharply."
"By removing the driver from the equation (the largest cost in a taxi ride), the average cost per mile to the consumer could be 44 cents for a private ride in a standard sedan and 8 cents for a shared ride in a two-seater," Johnson wrote, noting that would be "well below" the $3 to $3.50 a mile consumers now pay to ride in an UberX car or the $1 to $1.50 a mile for an UberPool vehicle.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:03PM
So basically, people will stop buying multiple cars because robot cabs will be so cheap? I'm not so sure about that. Certainly, cheaper cab rides means people will tend to use them more. I think services like Uber, Lyft and SideCar have demonstrated this. However, I don't really see there being enough robot cabs to get everyone to work in the morning. So anyone with any significant commute will probably still need their vehicle. Also, having a car is more than just basic transportation. Taking a cab to and from the grocery store isn't really a pleasant experience. And what about when you don't have an exact destination? Or what if your destination is unlikely to have nearby cabs waiting to pick you up when you want to return home?
Sure, maybe in certain areas more people will learn to rely on an Uber-like service that's made up for a bunch of Johnny Cabs. But I don't think you can claim that this will happen all across the U.S. The places where it is likely to happen are more likely to shift people from one form of public transportation to another, instead of shifting from private to public transportation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:13PM
Instead of waiting half an hour under stress on a crowded street in between other cars, you'll wait half an hour doing something useful or for pleasure until your robotaxi arrives. Sounds like a win to me. And also if you buy your own car, you'll probably also buy a self-driving one, so you just can order the car back home to allow other family members to use it until you need it again in the evening.
I don't think it is a common occurrence that several family members independtly go to separate grocery stores at the same time. Therefore one family car is more than enough for this.
You do the same as with a normal taxi: Order it in advance.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @04:20PM
until your robotaxi arrives
And we shall call this technology....... wait for it... A BUS!
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday May 21 2015, @06:55PM
Except my bus will then arrive at my door, not 2 miles down.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:12PM
So basically, people will stop buying multiple cars because robot cabs will be so cheap?
The rich will always buy as many things as they think they need. Others however will take advantage of the efficiency. Imagine if you and your spouse work, but don't work at exactly the same times. So hubby who has to leave for work first, drives to work then sends the car back to wifey, who needs the car to work or do something else. Wifey then sends the car back to pick up hubby... so you have the family getting its transport completely satisfied by one vehicle that's working all day long, rather than by two vehicles that spend half the day sitting in a parking lot. It's far more efficient!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:41PM
That's a great idea! Instead of rush hour being limited to just a couple of hours in the morning and the evening, you can now have rush hour 24 hours a day with all these empty cars zipping back and fro between 'hubby' and 'wifey'! Hurray for efficiency!
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:57PM
Not really. You haven't increased the population size. You've reduced the amount of vehicles on the roads. The amount of roads remains the same. Why would you expect "rush hour" 24 hours a day? Sure, there would be more traffic on average, but the actual rush hour "peak" traffic would be far lower. Add to this the fact that most traffic jams are started and maintained by bad driving practices (accidents which autonomous vehicles just wouldn't have, rubbernecking that autonomous vehicles wouldn't do, and those thousands of endless little territorial battles as people fight to get into or prevent people from merging into lanes), and it would mean efficient flow on the roads overall.
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Friday May 22 2015, @01:42AM
You may have decreased the total number of cars, but you have increased the total number of miles driven daily and thus the number of cars on the road. Example from today: My wife and I both commute 10 miles to our jobs. We have two cars that make a round trip and travel a total of 2 x 2 x 10 = 40 miles per workday. Example from the future: We share the car and it makes two round trips for each of per workday, traveling 4 x 2 x 10 = 80 miles per workday. This leads to smaller garages but more traffic congestion.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Friday May 22 2015, @11:08AM
ou may have decreased the total number of cars, but you have increased the total number of miles driven daily and thus the number of cars on the road.
Not really, because cars can't be in two places at once. If there are fewer cars then automatically there will be less congestion - it doesn't matter how many miles they drive. They can't all be driving to the same place/through the same intersection all day long. Yes overall volume will be up, but the peak has to be lower.