Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[Abe]

Short term: it's so we can zone out in the cesspool that is traffic and imagine what it's like not being in an existential hell.

Long term: automated DDs for drunkards to reduce traffic deaths.

[Paper Chaser]

Short term: it's so we can zone out in the cesspool that is traffic and imagine what it's like not being in an existential hell.

Long term: automated DDs for drunkards to reduce traffic deaths.

Ok, but autonomy isn't necessary to solve those problems. Each of the problems given can be solved now by traditional taxis and newer "ride sharing" apps. These problems have the same outcome regardless of who/what is controlling the vehicle.

[AccidentialMustache]

There's a small technological revolution going on that could accelerate the shift from cars.

I see more and more of these electric bicycles.  They tempt me.  They are not out of bounds for purchase price.  With a set of panniers, they can be excellent for trips to the grocery store or general transportation.  They are a labor saving convenience.  You don't need to haul 2 tons of metal and plastic with you.  They are cheap to operate and maintain and do not require a large shed to store them, i.e. a garage.

As the climate changes Winters seem less severe.  The bike can be used on most days.

They can give one some of the off road freedom of a 1948 Willys Jeep.

I see these pictures of Denmark with all the bikes.  The roads seem to be able to move many many more people than if they are filled with cars.  It must be a boon to the taxpayers of Denmark to not have to build all these roads.

I love my ebike... but no, I don't believe it. I'd bet on the pod e-"bikes" first. The ELF, the bio-hybrid, the PEBL, or the pod bike. I suspect it needs to look more like the first three, not the pod bike (that'll bake you under glass in the summer), but they'll need to add snaps/zipper/something so you can get some sides on the thing to protect from rain/snow.

Produced in volume where you could get the price down to 2-4k USD, I think it'd be a winner that you could actually get Americans to roll in. It kinda looks like a car. It is self-stable in wet/icy conditions. The canopy can protect you from weather. You sit in a seat, not on a saddle. You can take a passenger, or haul a lot of stuff in their place (panniers are good... but not as good as a bike trailer, which is what the 2nd seat is more similar to).

We'd still need a pretty massive infrastructure redo though.

[gooki]

I'm not sure what problem autonomy actually solves?

One million road deaths per year.

10 million serious accidents per year.

The hassle of car ownership. Garaging, parking, insurance, cleaning, maintenance, fueling.

Cost of car ownership.

High cost of transport for those that can't drive.

Congestion.

Poor utilization of limited resources.

Excess CO2 emissions.

Unproductive time driving oneself.

Wasted time driving others.

Parking spaces wasting precious inner city space.

And I'm sure there's more.

[gooki]

Still, your goalposts shifted a lot from "none of us owning a car" to 20% of people not owning a car a decade from now. What's the current car ownership in high density cities?

No goal.post shifting, just some miss comprehension. None of us owning a car in the long term. 20-50 years from now is long term for me.

[gooki]

Genuinely curious - what makes you think we'll solve the 10% problem that quickly? i.e. the problem that there are too many edge cases for ML alone to be able to consistently drive as well as a human without some sort of major step up that we don't seem able to figure out?

Masses amount of data. The brilliance of autonomous vehicles is only one of them needs to experience an edge case for the AI to learn how to deal with it, and then that learning can be pushed to every autonomous vehicle.

If you have millions of vehicles collecting data driving 50 miles a day, you're going to experience a lot of edge cases over time.

[gooki]

Sure, here’s a couple:
-car seats for kids

The app knows your family and sends you a car with car seats installed.

Autonomous vehicles become so safe car seats are no longer a requirement.

-not getting into a car someone else has been using as a dumpster/sex dungeon

You leave a mess you get banned from the platform. That will quickly remove those that don't respect the service.

A messy ride arrives, you reject it, and a new ride comes to you and the dirty one drives to the depot to be cleaned.

-the opportunity to leave anything in the car and not haul it around with me

This becomes a matter of convince. What's more convenient, being able to leave stuff in a car or not having to ever; park a car, buy insurance, refuel or charge, clean, schedule maintenance, annual registration...

[Rural]

There's just no infrastructure yet for widespread electric vehicles, let alone autonomous vehicles. The nearest publicly-accessible electric vehicle charger to where I'm sitting is 55 miles away. On my 45-minute drive to work (when I do that ever again) I go along about 3/4 of a mile of road with lines painted on it, all of it the last mile before work. There's no Uber, Lyft, public transit* or taxi service anywhere closer than that charger. There is no food delivery (yes, that includes no delivery pizza).


I do want the electric to come along, and sooner is better than later. But I think we're more than a decade out from it being feasible for early adopters to try electric vehicles in a lot of rural areas. I think it'll probably take peak oil for that to happen. I intend to keep a diesel vehicle in the meantime, because I think that will be more widely available than gasoline for a while due to shipping demands.



*Aside from a county-run van service for the elderly - 5 days a week, must schedule the day before.

[alcon835]

I'm not sure what problem autonomy actually solves?

There are several things folks could list, but I'll give you one thing that would drive adoption to autonomous taxis - female passenger. My female friends hate being in an Uber/Lyft. They do it because it's better than the alternative (driving drunk, renting a car in a new city, etc.), but they are legitimately scared when they get into a car with a stranger. If I told them they could get all the benefits of Uber/Lyft without needing to worry about skeevy drivers, they'd hop on that in an instant!

Now, that's a small overall group. It's not going to change markets or anything, but it's a real advantage that would lead to meaningful adoption. Folks who don't use those app would suddenly be more open to it too.

The point with autonomous driving vehicles is it solves a lot of really small (but meaningful) problems for a lot of small groups and opens the door for innovation.

This is also why I like the cell phone analogy. Who benefits from cell phones? Well, parents benefit by knowing where their kids are and being able to stay in touch with them when they're out. That's a small group, but it certainly contributed to mass cell phone adoption. Autonomous driving vehicles doesn't need one, single, all-encompassing, pre-determined problem to solve, it just needs to solve enough problems for enough groups to scale up to mass adoption.

[Paper Chaser]

I'm not sure what problem autonomy actually solves?

One million road deaths per year.

10 million serious accidents per year.

Eventually perhaps. Right now you've got Teslas involved in high profile accidents crashing into things that most humans can easily avoid (large trucks sitting still in the freeway, emergency vehicles on the shoulder, etc). And like I already said once, the easy part of autonomous driving is pretty much done. It only gets more difficult from here. If enough high profile accidents happen then public opinion turns and law makers step in to regulate and that really slows down the adoption of the tech.

The hassle of car ownership. Garaging, parking, insurance, cleaning, maintenance, fueling.

Autonomy isn't needed to avoid the hassle of vehicle ownership. Plenty of people on this forum are already living car free. Taxis, and public transit have been around for a hundred years now. Autonomous vehicles don't solve this problem any better than what we have already.

Cost of car ownership.

High cost of transport for those that can't drive.

Do you honestly think that it will be cheaper to hail a vehicle every time one is needed than to own? Renting something on a very regular basis is almost always more expensive than owning it outright. In the few dense cities where it's prohibitively expensive to own a personal vehicle, they've got really strong public transit as a more cost effective alternative that robo taxis would have to compete against.

Congestion.

Maybe. If we get to a point where all vehicles are autonomous and can communicate with each other and the infrastructure (like traffic lights, etc) around them too. But if you've got human driven vehicles, or large slow moving trucks, etc there will always be some level of congestion. You're still going to have a morning rush hour and an evening rush hour where lots of people will need transportation to similar places at the same basic times.

Poor utilization of limited resources.

I don't think autonomy really does much in this area for the reasons above. You need enough vehicles to handle the heaviest transportation demands (daily rush hours, holidays with increased travel, etc). The rest of the time you'll have vehicles sitting idle.

Excess CO2 emissions.

Without a decrease in overall vehicles needed, the only way emissions go down is via less congestion which is a long way off. You'd have to have infrastructure changes, regulatory changes, and market changes all take place to get to a point where pretty much all vehicles are autonomous.

Unproductive time driving oneself.

Again, you can pay to be driven or ride public transit right now. It's been that way for a very long time. Autonomy doesn't really change anything in that equation as far as I can tell.

Wasted time driving others.

I doubt the people that are paid to drive feel like they're wasting their time. They're earning a living. It's not like most cab drivers would retrain and become school teachers or doctors or something when they eventually become replaced by software, so there's probably not a net gain for society either when these relatively low skill jobs disappear.

Parking spaces wasting precious inner city space.

Not if you've got a bunch of autonomous EVs charging while they're on standby between the morning and evening commutes.

[ender]

I suspect the number of miles driven will go up significantly if it's possible to just be a passenger in a car, vs requiring a driver attention. Especially if safety gets good enough you don't need seatbelts etc.

[gooki]

Autonomy isn't needed to avoid the hassle of vehicle ownership. Plenty of people on this forum are already living car free. Taxis, and public transit have been around for a hundred years now. Autonomous vehicles don't solve this problem any better than what we have already.

Quote from: gooki on Today at 03:52:29 AM
Cost of car ownership.

High cost of transport for those that can't drive.

Do you honestly think that it will be cheaper to hail a vehicle every time one is needed than to own? Renting something on a very regular basis is almost always more expensive than owning it outright. In the few dense cities where it's prohibitively expensive to own a personal vehicle, they've got really strong public transit as a more cost effective alternative that robo taxis would have to compete against.

Thanks for responding. I'll address these two together because they go hand in hand.

With the exception of a handful of metropolitan cities, public transit doesn't meet the needs of the people. Hong Kong is the only place I've been where I felt public transit could get me any where I wanted to go quickly, and cost effectively.

In my home town a 20 minute car commute, or 30 minute cycle commute is an hour long ordeal by public transit. What Im seeing is that the cost to make even a single notable improvement to public transit is so high, that investing in autonomous vehicle fleets would be an order of magnitude cheaper, and offer a service that is far superior.

The costs of robotaxi rides will determine the level of adoption. It'll start high(just below Uber prices) and then competition, economies of scale, and different ownership models will drive the price down to the point it's cheaper than public transit.

Maybe. If we get to a point where all vehicles are autonomous and can communicate with each other and the infrastructure (like traffic lights, etc) around them too. But if you've got human driven vehicles, or large slow moving trucks, etc there will always be some level of congestion. You're still going to have a morning rush hour and an evening rush hour where lots of people will need transportation to similar places at the same basic times.

Quote from: gooki on Today at 03:52:29 AM
Poor utilization of limited resources.

I don't think autonomy really does much in this area for the reasons above. You need enough vehicles to handle the heaviest transportation demands (daily rush hours, holidays with increased travel, etc). The rest of the time you'll have vehicles sitting idle.

Infrastructure and vehicle to vehicle communication isn't required to drastically reduce congestion. What will do it is the transition from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles. Autonomous electric vehicles makes that transition possible. The system knows who needs to go where at what time and will group passengers into optimal rides. For those that don't like to share, can pay a premium to ride alone.

Without a decrease in overall vehicles needed, the only way emissions go down is via less congestion which is a long way off. You'd have to have infrastructure changes, regulatory changes, and market changes all take place to get to a point where pretty much all vehicles are autonomous.

See my comments above. Driving the price down will get more people into electrified vehicles. Transportation as a service will reduce the vehicle fleet size. Sharing rides will reduce the total distance driven.

I doubt the people that are paid to drive feel like they're wasting their time. They're earning a living.

It's not those that are paid to drive, it's the ones that are not paid. The number one rant I hear from my coworkers who are parents is the amount of time they spend shuttling theirs kids around for sports. Autonomous electric vehicles will enable greater independence for the young and the elderly.

Not if you've got a bunch of autonomous EVs charging while they're on standby between the morning and evening commutes

See my comment above about reduced fleet size. You also have the benefit that they can charge in locations out of the inner city. The cost per mile is so low that charging locations don't need to be in prime locations.

[pecunia]

I'm not a city person, but the cities I've been in where they had good passenger train service sure did eliminate a lot of cars.  I could see the high speed rail doing the same thing nationwide.  Seems like this would be worth doing even if we weren't faced with global warming.

I used to be able to sleep on a train going to work.  It was nice.

Some say these trains won't work in all cities, but I think the people in the cities would reorient things so they had access to the train routes.  No worries about your self driving car shi**ing the bed.  No high priced parking.

I used to think it was cool when the train passed all those cars sitting in traffic.

It's an expensive technology, but it's tried and true.

You won't get rid of all cars, but you can make a dent in their number.

[BicycleB]

^Very true, @pecunia!

[Paper Chaser]

With the exception of a handful of metropolitan cities, public transit doesn't meet the needs of the people. Hong Kong is the only place I've been where I felt public transit could get me any where I wanted to go quickly, and cost effectively.

Taxis are the other option that currently exists in these places, and autonomous taxis would have to offer something more than human driven taxis currently do.

The costs of robotaxi rides will determine the level of adoption. It'll start high(just below Uber prices) and then competition, economies of scale, and different ownership models will drive the price down to the point it's cheaper than public transit.

Agreed that the cost will have a huge impact. But expecting costs below Uber, when Uber is already kept artificially low by venture capital funds seems like a bit of a reach to me.

Infrastructure and vehicle to vehicle communication isn't required to drastically reduce congestion. What will do it is the transition from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles. Autonomous electric vehicles makes that transition possible. The system knows who needs to go where at what time and will group passengers into optimal rides. For those that don't like to share, can pay a premium to ride alone.

Transitioning from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles would be impactful. It could also have happened at any time in the last 50+ years with human drivers. Mass transit, car pooling, etc are pretty much plateued. An autonomous driver doesn't change much of anything in that regard. A person that doesn't want to carpool now isn't going to be likely to want to carpool in an autonomous future because it's not about what's piloting the vehicle that matters for most people in these cases.

See my comments above. Driving the price down will get more people into electrified vehicles. Transportation as a service will reduce the vehicle fleet size. Sharing rides will reduce the total distance driven.

None of those things requires autonomy though? EVs, ride hailing/car subscription services, and mass transit/car pooling can all be done right now with or without autonomous driving tech.

It's not those that are paid to drive, it's the ones that are not paid. The number one rant I hear from my coworkers who are parents is the amount of time they spend shuttling theirs kids around for sports. Autonomous electric vehicles will enable greater independence for the young and the elderly.

Regular taxis can be called for this purpose right now. Perhaps people would feel safer without a human, but there may be other safety concerns with sending your vulnerable kid or elderly parent off in an unmanned "soft target" too.
This also seems like it could also lead to more miles traveled and less efficient overall transportation system (like Ender mentioned above) if people don't have to travel together as much. Above, you pointed out the importance of traveling together rather than individually, and here you seem to be pointing out a potential advantage of autonomous vehicles is that they'd allow more traveling alone?

See my comment above about reduced fleet size. You also have the benefit that they can charge in locations out of the inner city. The cost per mile is so low that charging locations don't need to be in prime locations.

If you're a for-profit corporation, why would you waste money and increase wear/tear on your vehicles by driving long distances without passengers? They only make money when paying passengers are on board, so maximizing those times seems critical to becoming financially viable. It would also eliminate time spent in travel, so you could service your customers more quickly. Unless charging the cars in dense locations is wildly more expensive, I think it makes more sense to charge them near the most potential customers and minimize time spent driving around empty without a paying customer.

[GodlessCommie]

Personal car ownership is only (relatively) cheap and convenient because of the massive - and I mean MASSIVE - investment into car-related infrastructure. Did I mention that it is MASSIVE? Both public and private. What we consider to be a natural order of things is none of the sort - it's the result of policies, laws, and (again) MASSIVE investment. Equally massive investment into walk/bike infrastructure+pubic transit would have produced an equally (or more) convenient environment, only more conducive to health and less destructive for the planet. Unfortunately, we are not starting with a clean slate.

To things flow out of it:

- we built a system with a lot of inertia. A lot of sunk cost. Change is incredibly difficult, because every aspect of our lives have been - for decades - actively designed around cars. That's definitely a case for pessimism, if you favor keeping Earth habitable.

- if we reach a critical mass of people who prefer not to own a car, investment into car-related infrastructure will decline. People who pay for the privilege of "not renting out a bedroom" will find that the premium is higher, and will start facing obstacles and inconveniences that those of us who prefer car-free living face now. That will create a vicious (for cars) cycle. It's a big, big IF, of course. I don't see it happening until climate change becomes catastrophic and impossible to ignore for the vast majority - and even then, seeing Covid denial being as widespread as it is, I'm not betting anything on the decline of personal car ownership.   

I feel like we are falling into a mental trap, when a more ambitious task (shift to full autonomy/from personal ownership) looks easier to achieve than a simpler one. I mean, electrification of personal cars are a much simpler problem, and we are nowhere near solving it. Plus, I'm not even sure it's that desirable - the number of miles driven is likely to go up in full auto/full rideshare model.

[nereo]

Regarding the autonomous driving vehicles, I suspect we will see a sea-change once insurance starts penalizing human drivers, and litigation accelerates that trend.  Eventually (and this requires continued improvement in self-driving cars) it will become apparent to underwriters that an autonomous vehicle are far less riskier to insure, as they won’t become distracted, speed, drive drunk, experience road-rage, or make bone-headed split-second decisions as humans are prone to do.

Currently it’s a non-issue because consumers don’t have a choice. Once a person can choose an autonomous vehicle, and doesn’t - they’re going to be more liable every time they are at fault in an accident.

Or… laws will simply phase in autonomous vehicles as a safety measure, much as they did with seatbelts and airbags. This will be driven by sob stories of teenage lives cut short by human drivers. E.g. you can continue to drive your current car, but all model years after 203X must have certain driverless safety standards (level 3?) and by 204X all new models must meet level 5 standards.   Or something like that.

[gooki]

Taxis are the other option that currently exists in these places, and autonomous taxis would have to offer something more than human driven taxis currently do.

Greatly reduced cost, reduced pickup times, wider service

Agreed that the cost will have a huge impact. But expecting costs below Uber, when Uber is already kept artificially low by venture capital funds seems like a bit of a reach to me.

Drivers are the single highest cost
Then gas
Then vehicle expenses (maintenance, depreciation)
And finally the platform (tech, advertising etc)

If you compare Uber costs between a country with a high labor cost and a low labor costs, there's an order of magnitude difference in price the customer pays. Removing the labor means any country can experience this order of magnitude difference.

Then you have lower fueling costs because they're electric. Lower maintenance costs because their electric, better utilization because they are not limited by driver shifts and lower advertising costs because your service is cheaper and naturally attracts more demand.

Transitioning from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles would be impactful. It could also have happened at any time in the last 50+ years with human drivers. Mass transit, car pooling, etc are pretty much plateued. An autonomous driver doesn't change much of anything in that regard. A person that doesn't want to carpool now isn't going to be likely to want to carpool in an autonomous future because it's not about what's piloting the vehicle that matters for most people in these cases.

Correct, it's about convince, cost and reliability. And that's what's different about autonomous transportation vs the existing modes. The inconvenience of car pooling is removed. When you are ready a car will be ready for you.

Regular taxis can be called for this purpose right now. Perhaps people would feel safer without a human, but there may be other safety concerns with sending your vulnerable kid or elderly parent off in an unmanned "soft target" too.

For low value events current Taxi pricing doesn't make sense. It's an easy decision today when it's $50 for a return trip to soccer practice vs drive my son and myself. At sub $5 for a return trip driving both of us becomes a whole lot less appealing.

This also seems like it could also lead to more miles traveled and less efficient overall transportation system (like Ender mentioned above) if people don't have to travel together as much. Above, you pointed out the importance of traveling together rather than individually, and here you seem to be pointing out a potential advantage of autonomous vehicles is that they'd allow more traveling alone?

Now taking my example above about soccer practice. 15 kids per team today means 15 parents and 15 children travelling to practice in 15 cars.

Where autonomous transport as a service is ubiquitous, we have 15 children requesting a ride. Car 1 picks up my son and on the way it see child 2 is ready and close by, does a minor detour, picks them up continues on its way, the child 3 is ready and on the route so stops and picks them up then delivers 3 kids to practice using one vehicle.

So now instead of 15 cars we have 5 cars to fulfill this transportation need.

That's 66% less traffic. Now the ease of transport will create more travel (I hope it does especially for the elderly), but the savings from shared transport means there is room for massive growth before we get anywhere near the capacity of the alternative we have today.

If you're a for-profit corporation, why would you waste money and increase wear/tear on your vehicles by driving long distances without passengers? They only make money when paying passengers are on board, so maximizing those times seems critical to becoming financially viable. It would also eliminate time spent in travel, so you could service your customers more quickly. Unless charging the cars in dense locations is wildly more expensive, I think it makes more sense to charge them near the most potential customers and minimize time spent driving around empty without a paying customer.

It's not long distances. Being just a couple of miles outside a city center gets you access to locations with significantly lower costs. The fleet operators will know the maths and find the most optimal locations.

[Paper Chaser]

Taxis are the other option that currently exists in these places, and autonomous taxis would have to offer something more than human driven taxis currently do.

Greatly reduced cost, reduced pickup times, wider service

All extremely speculative at this point. I live in a semi rural place on the fringes of a city of 2 million people. Taxi/Uber service is extremely limited to my home. It's going to take a long time and require lots of planning for either one to get to my house. The only way an autonomous taxi is better is if it's sitting idly nearby but that seems wasteful. And that's if any of them can even find my house. It's 2021 and there's not even a google street view of my house. Even though my street number is pretty clearly marked on my home, it's typical for delivery drivers and various food delivery app workers to mistakenly leave things at my house that are meant to be left several houses down because the GPS or app that they're using isn't perfect. There are no lane markings or street lights on my road, and it's relatively low priority for snow removal. Autonomous taxis can't function properly in this type of situation, and it's a fairly common scenario even in a prosperous country that's essentially been built around the automobile like the US has. A lot has to change for autonomy to become widespread just in the US, let alone on the global level where infrastructure may be even spottier.
They also seem far less convenient to me in this situation than just owning a personal vehicle. If I could send my own private autonomous vehicle with my kid to practice, that might be convenient for me, but it's still the same single passenger issue that doesn't really benefit anything environmentally and likely leads to more miles being driven.

Agreed that the cost will have a huge impact. But expecting costs below Uber, when Uber is already kept artificially low by venture capital funds seems like a bit of a reach to me.

Drivers are the single highest cost
Then gas
Then vehicle expenses (maintenance, depreciation)
And finally the platform (tech, advertising etc)

If you compare Uber costs between a country with a high labor cost and a low labor costs, there's an order of magnitude difference in price the customer pays. Removing the labor means any country can experience this order of magnitude difference.

Then you have lower fueling costs because they're electric. Lower maintenance costs because their electric, better utilization because they are not limited by driver shifts and lower advertising costs because your service is cheaper and naturally attracts more demand.

But right now Uber doesn't pay for most of those things. They pay for the app, and they pay their drivers minimally. The human driver currently shoulders the cost of vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance, charging/fueling, and cleaning in between fares. If Uber or some other app-based taxi company wants to eliminate the drivers they'll need to pay a lot of money to buy, insure, and fuel/charge a massive fleet of vehicles that can be ready at a moment's notice. And they're still going to have to pay a human to plug them in/unplug them for charging, clean them in between each fare, and maintain them whenever that's needed. They may even need to buy real estate so their fleet has guaranteed parking/charging locations near busy hubs so they may meet customer demand at a moment's notice, or so they may be cleaned quickly between fares.

Transitioning from single occupant vehicles to multi occupant vehicles would be impactful. It could also have happened at any time in the last 50+ years with human drivers. Mass transit, car pooling, etc are pretty much plateued. An autonomous driver doesn't change much of anything in that regard. A person that doesn't want to carpool now isn't going to be likely to want to carpool in an autonomous future because it's not about what's piloting the vehicle that matters for most people in these cases.

Correct, it's about convince, cost and reliability. And that's what's different about autonomous transportation vs the existing modes. The inconvenience of car pooling is removed. When you are ready a car will be ready for you.

How is the inconvenience of carpooling any different if a robot is driving vs a human? If you're still sharing a vehicle with others that you'd rather not share with, or waiting around for the ride to show up that's the inconvenient part.

If there has to be a car available at a moment's notice for pretty much every person out there, then we're really not changing much are we? The vehicle fleet stays the same size. There's little incentive for ride sharing or mass transit. We'd rent a vehicle when needed vs just walking out to our own personal vehicle with no wait time or planning.

Regular taxis can be called for this purpose right now. Perhaps people would feel safer without a human, but there may be other safety concerns with sending your vulnerable kid or elderly parent off in an unmanned "soft target" too.

For low value events current Taxi pricing doesn't make sense. It's an easy decision today when it's $50 for a return trip to soccer practice vs drive my son and myself. At sub $5 for a return trip driving both of us becomes a whole lot less appealing.

Speculating on future pricing for tech that doesn't currently exist seems like a fool's errand to me.

This also seems like it could also lead to more miles traveled and less efficient overall transportation system (like Ender mentioned above) if people don't have to travel together as much. Above, you pointed out the importance of traveling together rather than individually, and here you seem to be pointing out a potential advantage of autonomous vehicles is that they'd allow more traveling alone?

Now taking my example above about soccer practice. 15 kids per team today means 15 parents and 15 children travelling to practice in 15 cars.

Where autonomous transport as a service is ubiquitous, we have 15 children requesting a ride. Car 1 picks up my son and on the way it see child 2 is ready and close by, does a minor detour, picks them up continues on its way, the child 3 is ready and on the route so stops and picks them up then delivers 3 kids to practice using one vehicle.

So now instead of 15 cars we have 5 cars to fulfill this transportation need.

That's 66% less traffic. Now the ease of transport will create more travel (I hope it does especially for the elderly), but the savings from shared transport means there is room for massive growth before we get anywhere near the capacity of the alternative we have today.

Again, this is something that can happen right now without autonomy. Parents can take turns doing carpool to school or practice so that the total number of vehicles driven were reduced. My county has senior transport vans that can pick up multiple people and see that they get their necessary errands met. Software driving the vehicle isn't necessarily changing or improving these things. A slick app that schedules and routes these vehicles as efficiently as possible might but that's not autonomous vehicles.

It seems like you're claiming that autonomous taxis will be both more convenient for people and more environmentally friendly than the current ownership model but those two objectives seem diametrically opposed to me. You either prioritize the environment and force your customers to deal with some inconveniences by limiting trips or grouping passengers, or you prioritize the convenience to your customers and have excess vehicles on standby to service anybody's immediate needs anytime and anywhere with private pods that carry individual families or people.

[roomtempmayo]

Change is coming? Yup.

Autonomous cars that are a better experience, better financials and the greater preference of the masses to private ownership en masse?

I'll sit and watch and wait.

If most any other sector had so chronically over promised and under delivered, they'd long ago have been unable to get further funding and been sued by investors.  Somehow autonomous vehicles seem to be a sector where people only fail up.

Sometimes I wonder whether these VC pitches are actually earnest, or whether everyone in the room knows it's a bunch of wishful thinking that will likely lead to nothing (full autonomy by 2010!) but just may have enormous payoff.

[nereo]

Change is coming? Yup.

Autonomous cars that are a better experience, better financials and the greater preference of the masses to private ownership en masse?

I'll sit and watch and wait.

If most any other sector had so chronically over promised and under delivered, they'd long ago have been unable to get further funding and been sued by investors.  Somehow autonomous vehicles seem to be a sector where people only fail up.

Sometimes I wonder whether these VC pitches are actually earnest, or whether everyone in the room knows it's a bunch of wishful thinking that will likely lead to nothing (full autonomy by 2010!) but just may have enormous payoff.

It’s interesting that you view it this way.  I’ve basically thought the opposite - that despite all the legal barriers and the large segment of the population that seems dead-set against autonomous cars for various reasons - autonomy keeps steadily marching forward, and as of late it seems to be accelerating.

We were walking through a parking lot today and my SO pointed out how almost all of the cars had FFC, and most new cars have automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control and lane shift. It’s pervasive, but not (yet) all controlling.

Seems like most techonlogies - hype for years with progress only around the around the margins, until it hits some critical point and then **bam** it’s literally everywhere. I remember my friend’s father was working on HD (1080p) TV back in the mid 1990s and it always seemed a year or two away… but we kept waiting.  Then suddenly the hardware cost, the content and the broadcast bandwidth all came together and we went from standard to HD in a couple of years, and then to UHD less than a decade later.  Or cell-phones in everyone’s pocket.  Or laptops replacing desktops. Or social-media accounts.  Each was commercially available for well over a decade with low market penetration, and then they just took off. 

Maybe that’ll be the trajectory of self-driving cars, maybe not. I guess we’ll know in 5-10 years.

[ender]

If most any other sector had so chronically over promised and under delivered, they'd long ago have been unable to get further funding and been sued by investors.  Somehow autonomous vehicles seem to be a sector where people only fail up.

Sometimes I wonder whether these VC pitches are actually earnest, or whether everyone in the room knows it's a bunch of wishful thinking that will likely lead to nothing (full autonomy by 2010!) but just may have enormous payoff.

Why?

The tech is already more than safe enough to significantly reduce deaths, if all cars were self driving.

It's not technical challenges that are the issue right now, it's political and perception.

[pecunia]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

[boarder42]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

Keeping jobs for the sake of jobs is beyond dumb.

[nereo]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

Keeping jobs for the sake of jobs is beyond dumb.

Agreed, but that doesn’t mean an organized political block can’t delay it for a while (or isn’t actively helping to delay it now).  Look at how taxi drivers have had success blocking Uber and Lyft in several markets.

I sympathize with pecunia - it’s both socially and economically to our benefit to try to dampen the effects such disruptive technologies have on an industry.  Sadly, though, in this country that’s often negatively viewed as ‘socialism!!”.

[pecunia]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

Keeping jobs for the sake of jobs is beyond dumb.

Not really.  It can be less money to the economy to have someone working rather than for someone to be not producing anything just picking up unemployment.  These jobs are not necessarily permanent however they allow persons to transition to more long lasting endeavors.  The sudden shock of millions of employees being out of work can be very disruptive to an economy.  It's a sharp transient.  Keeping a steady state with a slow shut down of those jobs means taxes can still be collected and the jobs that depend on those jobs are also not disrupted.  I'm not saying to keep the jobs forever, but the lives of people should be wisely considered in an enlightened society.

[Paper Chaser]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

I think the truck drivers are likely to stay on for some years after automation. They'll be there to handle the fringe cases that automation might struggle with, much like train conductors and commercial pilots do now. They'll do a small percentage of critical work while the software handles the majority of the relatively simple cruising time.

[nereo]

Don't we already have a chronic shortage of long-haul truckers in this country?  I thought that was a major force in driving automation in that sector.

One thing's for sure, I would never recommend a young person today consider a lifetime career in either trucking or taxi-driving.

[Raenia]

For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going?  With fleet capacity significantly reduced to what is needed to handle normal daily use, wouldn't that fleet be massively undersized to deal with an evacuation?  Waiting for cars from neighboring cities/states to make up the difference would significantly slow the effort to get people to safety.

I remember how awful it was waiting for my mom to evacuate ahead of hurricane Irma, and adding extra concern about her ability to get a vehicle if she waited too long to request one would have been a new level of hell.  I expect it would be even worse for wildfires, when there's less warning that it's coming.

[Just Joe]

For an old Nissan Leaf I kinda buy the argument that an EV is a non starter if you can't charge at home or work.

FWIW the previous owner of my leaf managed to make it work, by DC fast charging ever day for 15 minutes on their way home.

But for modern EVs with 4x the range, and 5x faster charging a city dweller could easily get by with a 15 minute DC fast charge once week, or level 2 charging twice a week while going to the gym or getting groceries, restaurant.

Watched a couple of YouTube videos about the Leaf battery. You can upgrade the old 24 kwh cars to the newer 40 and 62 kwh batteries. The aftermarket has a solution. Just find a battery from a newer wrecked car (~$3500 plus installation). I'm sure it isn't cheap but in my mind its better than sending a good car to the crusher from an environmental point of view.

[Just Joe]

Commuting to work is now shown to be absurd for most of the white collar work force even if management doesn't currently agree and you have to rethink life.  What a waste to constantly drive 0-15 mins to a grocery store your food will be scheduled and delivered.

Daily life has changed quite a bit for office workers over this COVID episode but for the rest of us - life is exactly the same as it was. I'm and engineer and do quite a bit of face to face and hands on work. That's not going to change. I must go to the office and occasionally travel.

As someone who recently had a home repair - delivery services will need to run a very tight schedule. Food can't sit alone on my front porch. If our pets don't eat it, the wildlife will. The dairy will melt or sour.

I can't function with promises that it will arrive between 8AM and noon only to arrive three days later after much prodding via the telephone. That was a recent experience with a plumber service that is overbooked here. Meanwhile we had no water whatsoever. I had to fill up a barrel with water a friends' houses so we could bucket flush our toilets for several days. Never again I hope.

Edited to add: with a shared car or a taxi service like Uber - I could not have hooked up my utility trailer, put a big barrel in it and driven several miles to bring home ~50 gallons of water to flush with. or taken the barrel to a nearby stream to fill it with a bucket. No, I'll own a car for the rest of my life here. Should we somehow decide living in a crowded city is more appealing, I'll not own a car - and we'll pick a city where we can bicycle as much as possible. While I love to visit cities, I have zero interest in living in one.

[GodlessCommie]

For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going?  With fleet capacity significantly reduced to what is needed to handle normal daily use, wouldn't that fleet be massively undersized to deal with an evacuation?  Waiting for cars from neighboring cities/states to make up the difference would significantly slow the effort to get people to safety.

I remember how awful it was waiting for my mom to evacuate ahead of hurricane Irma, and adding extra concern about her ability to get a vehicle if she waited too long to request one would have been a new level of hell.  I expect it would be even worse for wildfires, when there's less warning that it's coming.

Private car ownership impedes mass evacuation. It's near impossible to build roads with enough capacity to handle all people moving at once in space-inefficient personal vehicles. Granted, you have to have a functioning government to handle it otherwise, which a large part of the US population opposes.

One exception is people living in very low-density areas. This lifestyle requires so much taxpayer and ratepayer support that in a sane environment it wouldn't be nearly as affordable - as thus prevalent - as it is now, at least for people not directly or indirectly involved in agriculture. But since it is here to stay, private car ownership there remains a must for a foreseeable future.

[Raenia]

For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going?  With fleet capacity significantly reduced to what is needed to handle normal daily use, wouldn't that fleet be massively undersized to deal with an evacuation?  Waiting for cars from neighboring cities/states to make up the difference would significantly slow the effort to get people to safety.

I remember how awful it was waiting for my mom to evacuate ahead of hurricane Irma, and adding extra concern about her ability to get a vehicle if she waited too long to request one would have been a new level of hell.  I expect it would be even worse for wildfires, when there's less warning that it's coming.

Private car ownership impedes mass evacuation. It's near impossible to build roads with enough capacity to handle all people moving at once in space-inefficient personal vehicles. Granted, you have to have a functioning government to handle it otherwise, which a large part of the US population opposes.

One exception is people living in very low-density areas. This lifestyle requires so much taxpayer and ratepayer support that in a sane environment it wouldn't be nearly as affordable - as thus prevalent - as it is now, at least for people not directly or indirectly involved in agriculture. But since it is here to stay, private car ownership there remains a must for a foreseeable future.

Is it better to leave half those people in their homes to weather the disaster, while the lucky half get to ride on uncongested roads?

[GodlessCommie]

Is it better to leave half those people in their homes to weather the disaster, while the lucky half get to ride on uncongested roads?

No one is left, everyone rides buses/trains/Army trucks on uncongested roads. But then again, requires functioning government that many Americans cannot even envision.

[pecunia]

Maybe - FEMA could invest in a passenger train.  This could create a parallel path for evacuation.  This parallel path could reduce the congestion, reduce unwanted anxiety and save lives.  The train could be routed to the urban areas in times of emergencies.  Since these are times of emergencies, I can't envision a problem using the private tracks.  It's just a thought.

[Luke Warm]

it's not just people evacuating, it's their pets, computers, photo albums and such. all that requires a lot of space. that said, during hurricane ivan a lot of people spent the storm in their cars stuck on the interstate.

[GodlessCommie]

FEMA doesn't necessarily need to own stuff - it needs an authority to put to use privately owned vehicles/trains/whatever and to restrict road use to give priority to high-capacity vehicles. If it's an emergency, act like it is an emergency.

Also, let's not forget that under the current system, roads are congested and people who don't own cars - or cannot afford shelter for an extended period of time - are often choosing or have no choice but to stay put and take the risk. So it's not like the system is very fair anyway. And it is like that largely because those of us who are better off are reasonably sure of our chances to save ourselves, thus see no reason to overhaul the system.

Where are autonomous vehicles in this system? Nowhere. I honestly don't see how they fundamentally solve any acute problem that we have now.

Re: pets, computers... It's an emergency. Lives are a priority. Computers are not. And then again, there are people without cars, who (currently) are lucky to get away at all. 

[windytrail]

Electric cars won't solve the problem of road congestion. (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201808)

Electric cars will increase dangerous, inhumane mining practices. The additional mines needed for raw materials would destroy our federal lands, or lands in other countries. (https://dispatches.business-humanrights.org/human-rights-in-the-mineral-supply-chains-of-electric-vehicles/index.html; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mining-insight/to-go-electric-america-needs-more-mines-can-it-build-them-idUSKCN2AT39Z)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of tire particle pollution. (https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of brake dust pollution. (https://airqualitynews.com/2020/04/16/air-pollution-from-brake-dust-may-be-as-harmful-as-diesel-exhaust-on-immune-cells/)

Electric cars won't solve the crisis of traffic violence, which kills 40,000 people in the US every year. (https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-04/traffic-deaths-increased-in-2020-despite-fewer-people-on-roads-during-pandemic)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of suburban sprawl. Suburban/exurban homes consume vastly more energy and water than urban households. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343404.2015.1079310?journalCode=cres20; https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170504093219.htm)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of transportation affordability for lower income people. EVs are even more expensive than combustion vehicles, which will only worsen the problem.

Instead, the only long-term solution is to invest in public transit, walking, biking, and build more housing in urban areas. Redesign cities back to how they were built for thousands of years before the (failed) suburban experiment.

[JLee]

Electric cars won't solve the problem of road congestion. (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201808)

Electric cars will increase dangerous, inhumane mining practices. The additional mines needed for raw materials would destroy our federal lands, or lands in other countries. (https://dispatches.business-humanrights.org/human-rights-in-the-mineral-supply-chains-of-electric-vehicles/index.html; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mining-insight/to-go-electric-america-needs-more-mines-can-it-build-them-idUSKCN2AT39Z)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of tire particle pollution. (https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of brake dust pollution. (https://airqualitynews.com/2020/04/16/air-pollution-from-brake-dust-may-be-as-harmful-as-diesel-exhaust-on-immune-cells/)

Electric cars won't solve the crisis of traffic violence, which kills 40,000 people in the US every year. (https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-06-04/traffic-deaths-increased-in-2020-despite-fewer-people-on-roads-during-pandemic)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of suburban sprawl. Suburban/exurban homes consume vastly more energy and water than urban households. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343404.2015.1079310?journalCode=cres20; https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170504093219.htm)

Electric cars won't solve the problem of transportation affordability for lower income people. EVs are even more expensive than combustion vehicles, which will only worsen the problem.

Instead, the only long-term solution is to invest in public transit, walking, biking, and build more housing in urban areas. Redesign cities back to how they were built for thousands of years before the (failed) suburban experiment.

Electric cars will absolutely have a huge impact on the problem of brake dust pollution -- with regenerative braking, mechanical brakes are hardly used at all.

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

[windytrail]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

[JLee]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

Based on what facts?

[boarder42]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

i think your name says it all "windy" full of alot of hot air. 

its kinda crazy to me an alt culture forum such as this has such a hard time grasping the reality of EVs and autonomous driving.  I can retire at 35 but EVs will never be affordable just like solar isnt cost effective - oh wait its the cheapest current way to produce energy.  EVs are already at the current level of price competition with ICEs just a matter of building up battery supply chains and efficiency is just icing on the cake for the future EVs

[GodlessCommie]

its kinda crazy to me an alt culture forum such as this has such a hard time grasping the reality of EVs and autonomous driving.  I can retire at 35 but EVs will never be affordable just like solar isnt cost effective - oh wait its the cheapest current way to produce energy.  EVs are already at the current level of price competition with ICEs just a matter of building up battery supply chains and efficiency is just icing on the cake for the future EVs

EVs are cost-competitive now, looking at total cost of ownership. They are MUCH better for the environment, and for human rights - oil extraction isn't any more benign than mining.

Having said that, a lot of our problems are related to car dependence itself, regardless of power source. In my mind, the jury is still very much out on autonomous cars solving them. Denser living, walk/bike/transit provides a surer path - but it's not an either-or proposition. It's mostly a question of priorities, and which approach is faster/cheaper/more politically feasible.

[nereo]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

BEV's are already much more affordable than similar ICE vehicles over the lifespan of ownership.

As for your other points, while I agree that the optimal solution is for much less driving overall, EVs are already much better for the environment than ICE vehicles on a total-lifecycle analysis.

I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently).  But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..

[windytrail]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

Based on what facts?

Based on the fact that a multi-ton hunk of metal and fiberglass requires an absurd amount of energy and complexity to produce, maintain, and move around for the 1-hour per day that most people use their vehicles.

The burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise; "technology" is not a persuasive answer.

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

i think your name says it all "windy" full of alot of hot air. 

its kinda crazy to me an alt culture forum such as this has such a hard time grasping the reality of EVs and autonomous driving.  I can retire at 35 but EVs will never be affordable just like solar isnt cost effective - oh wait its the cheapest current way to produce energy.  EVs are already at the current level of price competition with ICEs just a matter of building up battery supply chains and efficiency is just icing on the cake for the future EVs =

In your "reality" everyone can afford to drive around in EVs/AVs? Are you able to grasp that the EV Ford F-150 will cost between $40,000-$90,000? (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/20/ford-prices-electric-f-150-lightning-pickup-from-40000-to-90000.html). And you expect that every American can afford this? Can you point me to any research that shows that the cost of vehicle ownership is expected to decrease in the future, despite that fact that it has been constantly rising?

I can retire early because i spend vastly less than the average American does on transportation. Riding a bike costs me less than $400 per year. If I want to rent a car once a month for a weekend luxury, that's $200 out of pocket, no big deal. Of course there are other people on this forum who can afford an EV F-150, but that's not going to work for people on minimum wage. That's why we need better options for public transit, walking, biking, and more housing in urban areas (not to mention our climate needs).

I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently).  But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..

There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the flaws to the idea of electric vehicles as a panacea to our climate problems. We don't need more advocates for electric cars. The car companies in this country already have their powerful lobbyists. Where are the powerful voices for transit, walking, and biking?

There's far more danger in ignoring that our patterns of suburban sprawl development are simply incompatible with remaining below 2 degrees warming. That's why I am here to tell you all the reasons why electric vehicles cannot be a solution.

[boarder42]

In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store.  Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.

You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

[windytrail]

In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store.  Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.

You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

Requiring taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of an electric vehicles doesn't count. The costs are still there and someone has to pay for it. Also, the price of an Uber ride has gone up by 40% since December (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-fares-price-driver-shortage-travel-ride-hailing-app-2021-6). Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting everything delivered will cost even more than picking it up from the store.

Don't know what you mean by "inland", but the idea that most Americans live in rural areas is false. 83% of Americans live in urban areas (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet). Coastal counties account for 40% of the population and only 10% of the land area, so that's a good place to start, right? (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html).

I'm not a public transit designer, but I will continue to advocate for it. As I have said repeatedly, a good way to design a city is to legalize building all types of housing in urban areas.

[boarder42]

In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store.  Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.

You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

Requiring taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of an electric vehicles doesn't count. The costs are still there and someone has to pay for it. Also, the price of an Uber ride has gone up by 40% since December (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-fares-price-driver-shortage-travel-ride-hailing-app-2021-6). Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting everything delivered will cost even more than picking it up from the store.

Don't know what you mean by "inland", but the idea that most Americans live in rural areas is false. 83% of Americans live in urban areas (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet). Coastal counties account for 40% of the population and only 10% of the land area, so that's a good place to start, right? (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html).

I'm not a public transit designer, but I will continue to advocate for it. As I have said repeatedly, a good way to design a city is to legalize building all types of housing in urban areas.

uber prices went up b.c there arent drivers to drive self driving cars solves that.  you're assuming everyone who doesnt liver rural lives urban

52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.  https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-080320.html#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20HUD%20and,describe%20their%20neighborhood%20as%20rural.

hmm so your concept works for 27% of people

[JLee]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

Based on what facts?

Based on the fact that a multi-ton hunk of metal and fiberglass requires an absurd amount of energy and complexity to produce, maintain, and move around for the 1-hour per day that most people use their vehicles.

The burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise; "technology" is not a persuasive answer.

You made an absolute statement: "EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are"

The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. In this case, that is you.

[neo von retorch]

I think you need a new thread if you want to predict timelines on autonomous cars or "no one" owning a car (especially in the U.S.) ;)

This thread is just about predicting the hockey stick growth of electric powertrains!

(More seriously, I don't care if you derail the thread, but so much of it is trying to predict future technology or revolutionary changes to human behavior. It's hard to pull facts out that support future projections. So just remember it's largely your personal philosophy and opinion being reflected here. And don't be rude and accuse disagreements on people being unable to comprehend your arguments.)