Car ownership gone by 2030?
- Thread starter Duck_walk
- Start date
It makes a heck of a lot more sense overall. buying a huge depreciating asset to use it 1 hour a day that requires maintenance and storage isn't exactly a great use of money even if it is a necessity. Once they are automated why not just pay for what you use? Keep cars in use 24 hours a day and use them for efficient car pooling. That could result in huge savings overall.
No way people give them up whole hog, though. People love to drive.
No way people give them up whole hog, though. People love to drive.
Interesting. I hear this talked about all the time. I think they're underestimating the WFH factor. The daily commute to work IMO, is quite obviously not as necessary as it once was.
Clearly, the legal aspect will take years to work through. I think we often times overlook the good judgment that human drivers make to avoid wrecks. Barring cars are on a railroad track, I believe the development of technology by 2030 maybe a little premature.
Clearly, the legal aspect will take years to work through. I think we often times overlook the good judgment that human drivers make to avoid wrecks. Barring cars are on a railroad track, I believe the development of technology by 2030 maybe a little premature.
Last edited:
On a side note seeing auto insurance people and oil industry folks begging on the street corner will be very enjoyable.
I
I've been in many truck on a RR track, big ones with crew cabs and pickups. Kinda fun to run up and down the track in, except when they're takin you to job site. It's a little creepy, but also cool, to drive on RR tracks in the middle of the night, especially along the rivers .
No doubt insurance would be a huge, huge loser as large firms would self insure basic risks
I think it's difficult for older Americans to imagine this but I think a lot of millenials will adapt. Look how much they use Uber and Lyft already.
The data on driving among the young suggests driving is already on the decline - https://www.citylab.com/transportat...-for-why-millennials-are-driving-less/398366/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/19/drivers-licenses-uber-lyft/78994526/
http://time.com/money/4185441/millennials-drivers-licenses-gen-x/
That sort of stuff
Really, this sort of thing would be a heck of a deal for a young person if it works out right. You don't have to waste $10k of your credit capacity or savings to buy a car. You can use that money for a house or against your loans. Not paying insurance is another plus.
I also think it may vary based upon where you live - this sort of thing works a lot better in metro areas where you have a critical mass of customers. Probably is a tougher service to offer in rural areas.
You could also see "car shaving" like cord shaving - households going to 1 car instead of 2, using ride sharing as their second car.
My mom drives less than 5,000 miles a year. There's no reason for my parents to own two cars. This would work great for someone like her.
My mom drives less than 5,000 miles a year. There's no reason for my parents to own two cars. This would work great for someone like her.
It's tough to argue people care all that about driving cars when the average person is buying a lame crossover like a RAV4 instead of something fun or interesting. People will adjust.
When it costs $10 to get from Chesterfield to Clayton in an electric Pacifica that has WiFi, people will start doing that. For now, it's just too expensive when you have to pay for the driver.
When it costs $10 to get from Chesterfield to Clayton in an electric Pacifica that has WiFi, people will start doing that. For now, it's just too expensive when you have to pay for the driver.
Funny thing about the people who write these articles is they assume everybody lives in a big city or commutes from places where people live. They assume that every nook of the US is just like them, well it is not and what they don't take into account is how large America is and how many live in very rural areas where this simple does not work. There is no Wi Fi or cellular service which currently at this point technology requires to keep a car on the road.
This is more of a short term concern than a long term concern - cell signal on main roads is already pretty good, and at some point you'd have to think the cars are going to talk to each other and maybe to the roads. I believe they're closer than you think here based upon the experiences of Tesla autopilot drivers.
Even if the rural area doesn't move at the same pace, they can't afford to be behind in the metros. Too much money and too many people.
People have always owned their own personal transportation. It was their feet, Then a horse or horse and wagon, and now cars, trucks or motorcycles. The vehicle has evolved over time but not the fact people want their own transportation.
in 13 years there will be more privately owned cars on the road and zero of these creatures they talk about. STAMP IT!!
Yes and more land lines and more horse whips and my wife will make all of our clothes from animals we raise on the ranch.
You are telling me that a self driving car is going to know what todo when it comes up on a tractor and a hay rack and the farmer on the tractor is giving you the all clear go around. LOL I want to see that.
nobody has ever tested a self driving car that actually works in realistic traffic at posted speed limits. not going to happen
If it does there will be millions of good cars going to the crusher
1. Ridesharing fits marginal needs
A lot of this discussion seems to exist in a world where everyone has a car or no one owns a car.
The idea that in 13 years there will be more cars per adult in the US seems totally off base to me. The cost pressures are going to trend too much in the other direction.
Driverless cars will drive down the cost of Uber/Lyft to such a degree that many marginal car buyers will not feel they need a new car or a second car. It's not about EVERYONE not having a car. It's about a 22 year old living in Soulard saying I can just take an uber when I need a car, or a retired person who feels they don't need a second car anymore. Some parents won't rush out and get their 16 year old a car right away. Some people at college won't need a car anymore.
I expect lots of people will still have as many cars as they do today, but some people will have fewer.
2. People are driving less anyway
Miles spent in a car per American are still off the 2005 peak even after gas prices have fallen back down towards historical norms.
The rise of working from home and the aging of the baby boomer population into retirement is lowering the total number of miles driven per person.
3. Regulatory pressure is going to build at some point
Driverless cars will be materially safer. At some point, something may have to give when you have a technology that can prevent 30,000 deaths a year.
Thinking about this more, I think the challenge in rural areas more relates to the supply/demand mix.
- Populations are older and more likely to want to keep their current arrangement
- Business climate and regulatory infrastructure already exists in cities via ride sharing and taxis
- Distance per trip may be higher, increasing cost
- Average income is lower in many cases
- Why are you going to build out in an area where you only need 20 cars before you build in an area where you can run 200 cars? You may get better return on the fixed investments in cities
It feels like the rural service would gradually expand out of cities
I am just waiting for high speed internet and decent TV and cellular signal out here in the rural America, and a landline that does not go out at the first crack of thunder!!! Those are what I worry more about then some stupid self driving car!
Back in the day, we used to ask our government to ensure this sort of infrastructure investment happened (phones, electricity, mail, etc.)
I see no reason why we shouldn't expect it. Certainly the internet and phone part. These are public utilities.
Not having good internet is probably a disaster for attracting decent paying jobs in 2017.
Everything you just said in this post is exactly what i thought when i started the thread. The fact that you had to explain it to the rural crowd is frightening. Its not all about you, Trump voters.
to run a cable almost 40 miles to just one user or build a Cellular antenna to cover 20 square miles that a handful use year round I don't see it being a good fit for our tax dollars, which obvious it would need to be subsidized. We have power but what frustrates me they can run dark fiber on those high voltage lines, but yet cannot get data to me thru our current power lines....I am sure it is coming.
LOL likely excuse, I am sure you just figured it out now yourself. But yes in the cities I see these things happening, But I have an uncle who lives in DC, and yes he and his husband don't own a car. But funny when they come back here they do rent one because they find out they do need one when here there is no uber or lyft or even taxi cabs in these parts of SWMO.
There's a cost benefit limit, to be sure, but it doesn't seem like we have much of a focus on the broadband side that is designed to make sure that balance is being struck well enough.
I think the cell towers are more problematic from a cost/benefit than making sure we have well distributed broadband, especially when you can port out phone via skype or something like that
For a private company, sure, but there are societal considerations beyond that, don't you think? It's not good if 5% of America is basically cut off from decent broadband because it lives away from a main phone line.
I think that is a choice, nobody forces me to live where I live or vacation where I vacation. For decades people lived without internet I mean yes it would be handy and I would love to have it, but hey I choose to live where I live, so why should my choice force undo cost onto others?
I think the question is, in 2017, is having access to the internet as much of a public utility as having electricity, water, phone, etc. is? I would say yes. You say no. That's fine.
Historically, we have expected providers of utilities to ensure that access to their basic product was fully available to almost everyone.
Today, in America, about 95% of urban populations have access to broadband. Barely over half of rural areas do. The private market is creating a huge divide.
Today, in America, about 95% of urban populations have access to broadband. Barely over half of rural areas do. The private market is creating a huge divide.
I think this a great discussion, but I'm admittedly not extremely well versed on the particulars. Isn't 5G supposed to solve a lot of these issues once they make the strides to get there? Then, basically you'd have cell data that runs at near broadband speeds where you could then use your cellphone as a hotspot and never need to separate your internet service from your cell bill.
5g is mainly going to be on the business side machine to machine some could use it as a secondary provider but cost is going to be prohibitive. Then you have the issue that you still don't have true 4g in all parts of the US I have some Conference coming up on 5g business applications but we don't use a lot of 4g yet.
Last edited:
Ok. My tech skills have diminished tremendously, but I have driven into some very remote areas in the western part of the U.S. and my XM radio worked the entire time. How is this different from internet access? Dont insult me, just answer.
It is not but sat is just not cost effective and what happens to you dish or car signal in storm or very cloudy days. Just no a reliable return for the public sector.
I think it's getting there, yeah
Is it really less of a need than home phones were in the 1930s when we mandated universal service?
explain to me what happens when there are 5 million cars on the road at rush hour going 70 mph and someone hacks their onboard software and the cars all lose control in the mother of all car crashes. I can just imagine the lawsuits
Similar threads
