Uber has no hope in this town

eyeball · January 9, 2016

It'll have to be done on segregated roads then.

A mix of the two will be just too unmanageable I think.

Edited January 9, 2016 by eyeball

ReeferMadness · January 9, 2016

If people want to. It would take some serious Agenda 21 like intervention to force this on the public.

The only way it would work is if people could buy cars with autonomous features and find that they prefer it. I'm sure people had reservations about automatic transmission at some point.

No way it would be feasible to make everyone go to this model right away.

Agenda 21? :rolleyes: You think black helicopters are going to take away your cars?

Nothing happens right away but when it insurers start to drop rates for self driving cars and raise them for people, it will have an impact.

TimG · January 9, 2016

It's not just costs. It's costs plus convenience. Uber is not just a low cost cab company - it's a different business model. And once the cost of the driver disappears, it becomes a whole new game.

For people who do not commute daily it is currently cheaper to take taxis instead of buying a car. Most people don't. They want the perceived freedom that comes with owning a vehicle.

People who own a self driving car but don't need it for a few hours could make extra money by leasing it to Uber for rides.

So you are back to arguing that people will still want to own their own cars?

Well, you should call those guys running the pilot right away because I'm sure they haven't thought of any of those things!!

They would probably agree with me about the 'challenges' that have to be overcome. If they were honest they would admit that the system is not remotely viable at a large scale but convincing the government to fund pie-in-the-sky prototypes is a great way to earn money and get a chance to do some cool but engineering work for a few years. Edited January 9, 2016 by TimG

ReeferMadness · January 9, 2016

For people who do not commute daily it is currently cheaper to take taxis instead of buying a car. Most people don't. They want the perceived freedom that comes with owning a vehicle.

There are issues with taxis besides cost (although that is a big one). There aren't enough taxis on the road so you have to wait (typically 10-30 minutes). Some people don't like or trust taxi drivers. Change the economics and you will change behaviour.

So you are back to arguing that people will still want to own their own cars?

Well, some people own jet planes so certainly some people will own cars. The question is how many.

They would probably agree with me about the 'challenges' that have to be overcome. If they were honest they would admit that the system is not remotely viable at a large scale but convincing the government to fund pie-in-the-sky prototypes is a great way to earn money and get a chance to do some cool but engineering work for a few years.

Yup. 1970's thinking. Good luck with that.

TimG · January 10, 2016

There are issues with taxis besides cost (although that is a big one). There aren't enough taxis on the road so you have to wait (typically 10-30 minutes). Some people don't like or trust taxi drivers. Change the economics and you will change behavior.

But the economics aren't a big factor today so changing them is not necessarily going to change behavior. It could also change behavior in unexpected ways. For example, automated cars could increase the desire for ownership - not decrease it because commuting long distances from the suburbs in your personal office/entertainment pod/car is an attractive proposition. Edited January 10, 2016 by TimG

ReeferMadness · January 10, 2016

It'll have to be done on segregated roads then.

A mix of the two will be just too unmanageable I think.

It can't wait for segregated roads - and it shouldn't. Human drivers will have to adapt in the meantime, though. Google's automated cars actually have a higher rate of accidents than human cars - because people don't follow the rules. Google cars drive defensively and follow all the rules. People don't and so there have been numerous cases of humans rear-ending automated cars.

ReeferMadness · January 10, 2016

But the economics aren't a big factor today so changing them is not necessarily going to change behavior. It could also change behavior in unexpected ways. For example, automated cars could increase the desire for ownership - not decrease it because commuting long distances from the suburbs in your personal office/entertainment pod/car is an attractive proposition.

Doubt it. There is already a trend among millennials towards less car ownership. One of the current reasons that people spend so much money on their cars right now is that by driving they feel personally connected to their car. Once the car begins to drive itself, that link weakens. Also, self-driving vehicles will make other possibilities, like car sharing, more convenient and attractive.

TimG · January 10, 2016

Doubt it. There is already a trend among millennials towards less car ownership.

You are fooling yourself if you think the opinions of young people necessarily carry on into old age. People's needs change as they grow up, get married and have kids. Many 20 somethings who despised mini-vans end up buying one in their 40s. If self driving cars made commuting more tolerable you can bet that the demand for a real house in the suburbs would increase. Edited January 10, 2016 by TimG

ReeferMadness · January 12, 2016

You are fooling yourself if you think the opinions of young people necessarily carry on into old age. People's needs change as they grow up, get married and have kids. Many 20 somethings who despised mini-vans end up buying one in their 40s. If self driving cars made commuting more tolerable you can bet that the demand for a real house in the suburbs would increase.

If it doesn't come sooner, demand for self-driving cars will rocket in 10-15 years. That's when boomers will start hitting the period when they are losing their drivers licenses. Unlike their depression-era parents, boomers are not going to sit around and wait for their kids to drive them places. And those kids, who have been taught that their own needs come first, are not going to rearrange their lives to drive their parents around.

Bonam · January 12, 2016

Self-driving cars are also a solution for traffic and parking issues in dense urban areas. A car that you drive to work and send back home to park in your own garage / parking space (and then come pick you up again after work) means you don't need a parking spot near work. That means a city needs one parking spot per worker (at home), rather than two (at home and at work). Studies have shown that up to 50% of traffic in dense downtown areas is people circling around looking for parking. By eliminating people looking for parking, traffic will be reduced, and additionally some streets will have an extra lane of traffic because you won't need that lane dedicated to streetside parking.

I think full driverless cars will be on the market within 5 years and a significant portion of people will recognize their appeal very quickly. Of course, a big chunk of the population will be reluctant to give up driving their car themselves or to trust a computer initially, but even a few % of the car market is plenty to make driverless cars a profitable development, and once they are out there in real use they'll slowly erode the reservations of people who would initially be relucant to buy them.

Personally, I would feel much safer if the cars around me were being controlled by computers than by people. Not only that, I'd love to have self-driving technology for long road trips. No more swapping exhausting drive/sleep shifts with your buddy for a 15 hour drive, just hop in, relax, and let the car take you where you're going. No more sitting in traffic being aggravated, relax and read a book on your way to work. The demand will most definitely be there. If they were for sale for a reasonable price, I would most certainly buy one next time it's time for me to get a new car, as would many people I know.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Bonam

TimG · January 12, 2016

A car that you drive to work and send back home to park in your own garage / parking space (and then come pick you up again after work) means you don't need a parking spot near work.

At cost of doubling the energy consumption. Furthermore, it does not work well for people who don't necessarily know when they can leave work on any given day. I can't see this being a net benefit.

AI think full driverless cars will be on the market within 5 years and a significant portion of people will recognize their appeal very quickly.

They will have appeal but the question will be whether they can replace the family vehicle for all uses or simply be a second commuter vehicle.

bill_barilko · January 12, 2016

I'm sure people had reservations about automatic transmission at some point.

In some countries people still do they are convinced manual is more efficient and automatics can't handle hills.

ReeferMadness · January 12, 2016

Self-driving cars are also a solution for traffic and parking issues in dense urban areas. A car that you drive to work and send back home to park in your own garage / parking space (and then come pick you up again after work) means you don't need a parking spot near work.

No need. The list of companies that are working on self-driving car sharing services includes General Motors and Lyft. Tim can hug the past as tightly as he likes but the future will come anyway.

Longer term, GM and Lyft will work together to develop a fleet of autonomous vehicles that city dwellers could summon using Lyft's mobile app. Partnering with GM could give Lyft a boost over its arch-rival, Uber Technologies Inc., which is working on its own driverless cars.

Bonam · January 12, 2016

At cost of doubling the energy consumption.

Which can be pretty much ignored if the car is also electric, since electricity is dirt cheap compared to gasoline per distance traveled. And cars are definitely headed that way as more and more mainstream car manufacturers put electrics on the market. More capacity will be added if enough people start using electric cars to actually increase electricity demand. And that's probably a good thing so we can actually start adding some modern power generation to the mix instead of relying almost entirely on stuff built decades ago.

Furthermore, it does not work well for people who don't necessarily know when they can leave work on any given day. I can't see this being a net benefit.

They will have appeal but the question will be whether they can replace the family vehicle for all uses or simply be a second commuter vehicle.

It doesn't have to work for everyone. Just enough people that it's a big enough market for companies to develop and deploy the technology. And that only needs to be a small % of the overall car market. Like any new technology that offers some advantages, once its out there and people start seeing it in action, those initially reluctant will start to come around.

Bonam · January 12, 2016

No need. The list of companies that are working on self-driving car sharing services includes General Motors and Lyft. Tim can hug the past as tightly as he likes but the future will come anyway.

I think there will definitely be a market for both... fleet/shared driverless cars as well as personally owned driverless cars that return to your own parking spot. There are many legitimate reasons why someone may want their own car as opposed to just summoning a shared or fleet vehicle.

The biggest obstacle to all of this now is going to be regulation. The US and Canadian bureaucracies are probably gonna be dragged into adoption kicking and screaming 5-10 years after places like Germany, Japan, and South Korea have already largely converted and began realizing the massive economic benefits.

TimG · January 12, 2016

Which can be pretty much ignored if the car is also electric, since electricity is dirt cheap compared to gasoline per distance traveled.

Assuming that rates don't skyrocket as a system handcuffed by anti-CO2 regulations is forced to increase its capacity to deal with widespread EV use. You are also assuming that self driving cars have to be EVs. If they are then I expect they will be as popular as the existing crop of low cost EVs which no one wants (notwithstanding the fact that Telsa's have a niche for people with money to burn).

Boges · January 12, 2016

Yeah there's no way this becomes the norm until EV's become economical to buy, which they currently are not. And if you are sending these cars back home, how does that not create another rush hour? Do they just find a docking station in your driveway like a Rumba? What if you don't have a single family home and you park on the street?

BTW, I suggest this go to a new thread because this also has little to do with the current regulation battle with Uber v Taxi Industry.

Special Delivery · January 18, 2016

Free enterprise is a wonderful thing. Let's see how this plays out over the next six months.

bill_barilko · January 19, 2016

Free enterprise is a wonderful thing....

So we're told but there's notta helluva lotta in Canada.

GostHacked · January 19, 2016

Self-driving cars are also a solution for traffic and parking issues in dense urban areas. A car that you drive to work and send back home to park in your own garage / parking space (and then come pick you up again after work) means you don't need a parking spot near work. That means a city needs one parking spot per worker (at home), rather than two (at home and at work). Studies have shown that up to 50% of traffic in dense downtown areas is people circling around looking for parking. By eliminating people looking for parking, traffic will be reduced, and additionally some streets will have an extra lane of traffic because you won't need that lane dedicated to streetside parking.

Unless gas gets cheaper, having the car drive twice the distance and only half the time transporting me, you now are spending more on gas and causing more unnecessary traffic on the road.

Bonam · January 19, 2016

Unless gas gets cheaper, having the car drive twice the distance and only half the time transporting me, you now are spending more on gas and causing more unnecessary traffic on the road.

The future of cars is electric, and the electricity cost per distance driven is dirt cheap compared to gas. And not having people circling around looking for parking and freeing up parking lanes to be used as traffic lanes will compensate for the traffic to a large extent, as will the fact that most cities have a commute direction and an "anti-commute" direction in which there is much less traffic, and the cars going back will be adding to the anti-commute traffic not to the commute traffic.

Anyway, just one of the many possible advantages of self-driving vehicles. Not all the potential advantages will necessarily pan out but some will.

Boges · January 29, 2016

Edmonton has come out with regulations for Uber.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/01/28/edmonton-legalizes-uber-paving-way-for-toronto.html

Edmonton council voted 8-4 on Wednesday, at a meeting punctuated by protesting taxi drivers, to legalize California-based Uber starting on March 1, with conditions:

“Private transportation providers,” including Uber drivers, must have provincially approved commercial insurance and undergo car inspections and criminal record checks.

PTPs and traditional taxis all charge passengers a minimum $3.25 fare.

PTPs have no legislated per-kilometre rate, opening the door to Uber’s “surge” peak-time pricing with no maximum, while taxis maintain city-legislated rates.

Only taxis can be hailed on the street or ordered by phone.

Uber will pay Edmonton $70,000 a year to operate there.

Edmonton said it will hire more bylaw officers to ensure Uber plays by the new rules.

If commercial insurance is several thousand dollars a year, I anticipate people just ignore this legislation.

Boges · February 9, 2016

More insane behaviour from cabbies in response to Uber.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tory-taxi-protest-toronto-1.3438542

"We're all struggling and dying out there because illegals are killing us," United Taxi representative Paul Sekhon told CBC News.

Sekhon said traditional cabbies plan to cause disruptions downtown with the spotlight on the city and international media here to cover the All-Star Game.

"There's going to a be big protest outside and everybody is going to see why we're protesting because we're hurt," said Sekhon. "We have no choice because we have nothing else to lose."

Traditional Toronto taxis are heavily regulated but Uber — and in particular its ride-hailing app UberX — connects paying passengers with private cars that provide a taxi-like service for a fee. Cabbies have complained they can't compete with Uber, which they say is operating illegally while they're forced to play by the rules.