It seems that the sharing economy was a transitional state from private ownership to corporate ownership. The point is that if the technology that allows sharing is good enough, the incentive to own a car — even to rent it out — goes down. And it goes down potentially all the way to zero.
Here is how I look at it:
1. What you want is car rides on demand. A few years ago, you needed to own a car in order to get that, because taxis can take a long time to show up and they are expensive.
2. If Uber and Lyft are reliable and affordable, then you do not need to own a car. The drivers own the cars. But in theory Uber and Lyft could own the cars–if they want to put up with the hassle of figuring out how to make sure drivers do not abuse the vehicles.
3. If autonomous vehicles are possible, then Uber and Lyft do not have to worry about what the driver might do to abuse the car, so it makes sense for the corporation to own the cars.
Same story, different verse:
1. What you want is a reliable source of food. A century ago, you needed to own a farm in order to get that, because refrigeration was nonexistent and grocers were expensive.
2. If refrigeration and modern farming technology are reliable and affordable, then you do not need to own the farm. In theory the food transporters or resellers could own the farms – if they want to deal with the hassle of making sure farmers are productive and don’t abuse the land.
3. If highly automated farms are possible, then it makes sense for Big Ag to own the farms.
We will see:
1) I do think driverless cars will be a long term reality but it still in the Vaporware stage as the driving programing is still focused on very optimal driving. So Uber & Lyft will need driver as backups for 10 – 15 years. (Historically we forget how long more inventions take to reach mass marketing. The internet was invented in 1969 and wasn’t until 1993ish the average person started seeing the impact.)
2) Given the current labor markets, I suspect Uber and Lyft may have to supply cars to drivers at some point. (Companies can control cost with economies of scale better in the long run and the drivers I knew underestimate vehicle cost.) Uber has a good model but it is losing a lot of VC money and it competed in a medallion protected market. That advantage might be disappearing.
3) I am guessing that it is the passengers not drivers who do the most damage to the vehicle. And without a driver, who knows what happens with passengers. So I do not know if Uber can protect the driverless cars. (That is why I don’t think we will see driverless trucks…A company hase $5M of merchandise without anybody watching it sounds dangerous.)
“And without a driver, who knows what happens with passengers.”
I do — teens will be having sex in robotaxis while touring the city.
Unless there is a big sign saying, “For your safety, Video surveillance inside vehicle.”
You think the MeTube Generation cares?
It will be very easy for Uber/Lyft to charge passengers that damage their vehicles. They have your credit card, they know when you are in the car. If you leave it a wreck, they can easily charge you for it.
That presumes it is cost effective to inspect the vehicle after every ride.
Maybe? Autonomous vehicle, autonomous inspector.
Zipcar manages this.
There are already millions of miles of self-driven fleet performance history. There are major announcements of self-driving cars from most manufacturers for the 2020 timeframe. All component providers (e.g. car radios) are intimately aware of the shift and are planning appropriately. Sensors are improving, computation is reducing in price, software is improving, now benefiting from learning derived from impressively large fleet totals.
Ray Kurzweil points out that the penetration of new technologies is accelerating. I expect self-driving cars to be fairly ubiquitous by 2025.
Lyft and Uber will represent a possibly fatal threat to mass transit. A fleet of super-golf-cart vehicles, say 30mph speeds and more like a 2-person tram than a car, will be taking you around town. There will be no problem with damage, there will be total surveillance of everything inside and outside the vehicle.
I bet Uber and Lyft are examining long-haul options that carry say 10 people, more or less on demand, between hubs close to cities.
I used to enjoy driving but I really don’t care now. I have cars worth say $30k in my garage, with yearly expenses in the range $5k plus depreciation. I may be able to dump 1 car within 10 years and both within 15. Multiply this by 100M.
There will be/must be Uber and Lyft competitors, and not just by land. We are probably 12 years away from a commercial drone that can carry people.
The ownership of these vehicles will probably be corporate rather than personal, although as choices get ubiquitous and cheap it can be hard to predict. Witness mainframe computing (corporate) -> personal computing -> cloud computing (corporate). Suburban dwellers may still buy their own transport podule for, say, $5k, like a souped up golf cart that gets them around town, but city dwellers have no convenient place to store them. Ultimately, transport/travel options are partly about lifestyle rather than cost, but personal ownership seems destined to decline.
“Lyft and Uber will represent a possibly fatal threat to mass transit.”
This presumes “mass transit” is subject to market rather than ideological forces. Last time I checked, “mass transit” is subsidized 10 to 1.
Precisely. If mass transit had to pass anything like a market test, we wouldn’t see cities building out multi-billion dollar light rail systems that could be done much cheaper with buses.
I would disagree in general. The ease of sharing with self driving cars should be largely offset by the value you get out of owning your own.
http://sebwassl.blogspot.com/2016/09/self-driving-cars-and-psst.html
Y’all are discussing this as if a city commute or a trip to the dentist were 95% of vehicle use.
Q:
Do any of you have multiple kids in sports or other activities with gear?
How is any of what you describe going to meet the needs of a 2-adult, 4-kid, family dragging two* ice hockey gear bags to games & practices? (*possibly three bags if one kid doesn’t know if he’ll be playing skater or goalie. Hint for bulk: Google “hockey gear bag”.)
Or carrying skis/snowboards for your week vacation in Aspen or Whistler? Or pulling a trailer of snow machines to the winter cabin – where you need 4-wheel drive to get there? Or pulling your boat or horse trailer? Or carrying a moto-cross cycle on a hitch rack? Or any of the myriad other uses for our personal vehicles?
I’m not saying that driver-less or rent-a-car&driver or other solutions are not coming; I’m just trying to envision their place in the family-world.
I think your scenario actually shows how much better a rent-a-car universe would be. Right now, a family has to buy one or two cars that fulfill many needs- commuting to work, running weekend errands with a couple people, long family trips with 5 people, etc. That means you have to compromise vehicle features, often buying a large car/SUV that’s only actually necessary on 10% of your trips. In the rent-a-car world, you can just order up a single person vehicle for your work commute, get something a bit bigger for your weekend errands, and get something larger with lots of storage for the long distance trip.
Also, if you don’t need a driver, you could send a young teen of by himself.
This is just a hunch, but I bet that car depreciation is one of the unsung subsidies of the UBER model. I’m guessing your average person driving for UBER mostly keeps track of his hourly rate, and maybe subtracts immediate costs (gas). Many might not even own the cars they are driving (how many people making UBER driver wages own the kind of cars I get picked up by).
As a simple example, I bet many are students using Mom and Dad’s car/insurance. In which case they really don’t care about anything but the marginal cost/profit of the next ride and don’t care about capital depreciation. They are also probably free riding the insurance companies actuaries. Anyone clocking in UBER mileage is probably a greater risk then average. They’ve started asking the question but I bet control is scant.
Unless the customers vandalize the cars, though I suppose there are checks against that.
Yeah, that’ll work until the first storm or attack evacuation. Remember what happened to the people dependent upon government/corporate transportation in New Orleans, they got left behind.
A vehicle is freedom to go where you want when you want. A ride is the freedom to go mostly where you want when a ride/auto is available.
Will people peaceably give up this:
“Similarly the American who has been humbled by poverty, or by his insignificance in the business order, or by his racial status, or by any other circumstance that might demean him in his own eyes, gains a sense of authority when he slides behind the wheel of an automobile and it leaps forward at his bidding, ready to take him wherever he may personally please.”
–‘The Big Change: America Transforms Itself 1900-1950’ (1952), Frederick Allen Lewis
Very interesting thoughts all.
Interestingly yesterday, I was wondering about the effect that self driving RV’s would be having to the whole new world. One possibility is that the self driving motorhome is probably one of the scenarios where people might feel like owning the vehicle. Another option is luggage and automated closets co-evolving to make sure that quick movement in and out of various vehicles/chassis is made feasible. Lots of opportunities here and a possible windfall for the one who strikes it lucky.
Brad templeton’s blog (please google for it) is probably the go-to place for good analysis on this. He has thought up of plenty of scenarios and whether you agree with his analysis or not, it will be a decent read.
Colocomment – Vehicles of all possible sizes could be made available on tap, with various premia associated with them. The key really is that it looks like the future will be cheaper to those who can anticipate how their demands change and bargain for these in advance. Not really different from today in that regard.
J K Brown – When the ecosystem matures, it may be possible that evacuation will become more efficient with shared vehicles. Insurance companies may send out huge fleets to pull their customers and their insured items out quickly.
I see good, rational arguments that people will no longer own cars. I can make similar rational arguments that ordinary people will never buy pickup trucks.
And yet they do, millions of them.
What rational arguments are there against pickup trucks?
The mere existence of self-driving cars–assuming the technology does in fact reach the level where they can be trusted on any road in any conditions–is not all it takes for anyone anywhere to have “whatever” they want “on tap,” there are obviously other logistical issues.
An American buys a Ford F-150 approximately every 30 seconds. The growth required in car-sharing for it to become a real threat to ownership is mind-boggling. And I can guarantee that while self-driving cars will mean that some people will decide they have no need to own a car, others will buy them for their PETS.
This morning I golfed and drove a golf cart. I was pondering what would be the point of a self-driving golf cart. How would it know where to go? Would it have to have a detailed map of the course? How would it know where my ball went? If there were two of us in the cart, would it know to drive first to the nearest ball? How would I communicate with it? What would it do if the ball went into the drink? Would I have to use balls with chips in them? I’m sure a self-driving golf cart would be several times more expensive than the ordinary human-driven sort. I think this is the real dream of the tech and auto companies when they talk about eliminating human drivers: it would require replacing a century’s worth of cars with brand-spanking-new-and-expensiive-as-hell cars. They have dreams of fabulous wealth and power. But I really don’t think the cost and the resulting redistribution of wealth and power would be worth it.