XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article , gossg@gossg.org says...   
   >   
   > Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > >> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of   
   > >> human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able   
   > >> to afford them.   
   > >   
   > >Afford them?  Why would we even buy them?  My whole point is that I'm   
   > >abstracting the problem of moving people from point A to point B.   
   > >Currently, that is done with a dedicated vehicle when you want to   
   > >reliably have it at your disposal.  Adding a human driver to that is   
   > >rather expensive but, as you note, it allows you to re-examine the root   
   > >problem and, as a result, you can offer a redundant array of inexpensive   
   > >vehicles (RAIV, aka taxi) to achieve the same A to B service.   
   >   
   > I don't take taxis because they're expensive and have long delays for   
   > pickup in my sprawled city.  The supply of taxis is artificially held   
   > low to make the driver's pay a living wage, and to allow adequate   
   > maintenance on the vehicles.   
   >   
   > Taking the driver out of the system would allow more of these robocabs   
   > to be around, so that one might be available within two or three hours   
   > of bar closing time.   
   >   
   > Tracking user-caused damage (eg bar barf) might require a membership,   
   > so the model might be closer to the car-share companies than to taxis.   
   > Some of the limited-supply cab drivers avoid bar closing, because the   
   > nuisance and clean-up doesn't pay them enough.   
   >   
   > Most cities have micro-rent companies or co-ops that let you call up   
   > an app that tells you where the last user left the car.  But you still   
   > have to walk to that car, which makes it as inconvenient as a bus, and   
   > unworkable for suburbanites.  It also doesn't support daily commutes   
   > where the vehicles all start in the suburbs and get left downtown.   
   >   
   > A cross between the taxis and the micro-rent companies is where you're   
   > effectively renting the car, rather than hiring a driver.  The costs   
   > are mostly capital rather than mostly labour.   
   >   
   > Call up the app and the car comes to you.  And if you take the driver   
   > out of the picture, then artificially restricting the supply becomes   
   > less of an issue.   
   >   
   > >To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably   
   > >lowering the cost.  Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to   
   > >shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1   
   > >chauffeured vehicle.  It makes you pause to think about what is going to   
   > >be in it for the car makers.   
   >   
   > What was in it for the car makers to stretch lifetimes from 5 years to   
   > 20?  Detroit ignored that market shift and the Japanese took over.   
   > There is more than one car company.   
      
   Actually that stretch is more due to improved lubrication and compliance   
   with emissions laws than with any intent on the part of the   
   manufacturers.  The engine in my Jeep is, other than the electronic   
   engine control which is there for emissions and the roller valve lifters   
   that are there to cope with reduced zinc content in the oil, not much   
   different from the ones that were being put in Jeeps in the '60s.  But   
   it can be expected to last more than 200,000 miles where in the '60s it   
   would last about 100,000.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)