If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CEI)   Uber, Lyft, ZipCar and similar companies want to make self-driving cars illegal unless they are driven by large fleets owned by Uber, Lyft, ZipCar and similar companies   ( cei.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, City, dense urban areas, Automobile, rental company ZipCar, Uber's service, giant Uber, Urban area, self-driving cars  
•       •       •

710 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Feb 2018 at 11:50 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-02 11:42:39 AM  
And the Competitive Enterprise Institute has a problem with this because...?
 
2018-02-02 11:52:40 AM  
American enterprise wants to engage in rent seeking behavior? Color me chocked.
 
2018-02-02 12:13:14 PM  
Why compete when you can simply purchase legislation. It's the American Way.

/ competition is an over-glamorized concept anyway
 
2018-02-02 12:13:52 PM  
Just the latest version of wanting the benefits of being a taxi company, without the drawbacks.
 
2018-02-02 12:18:37 PM  
Somehow I don't recall this step being mentioned by the Utopians. I was assured that within 5 years all normal cars will be pushed off the road by ridiculous insurance rates and everyone will have one of these.

Any.....day......now
 
2018-02-02 12:28:20 PM  
I can see why those companies would want all cars owned by themselves. I can also see CEI implying this will be the new norm because they want to prevent any change.
 
2018-02-02 12:33:26 PM  
So, the places that would be best served by rail service would switch to individual cars.  That is the entire reason behind the push for AV's.   You can cut deaths down to a fraction of what they are by enhanced enforcement of existing traffic regulations.   Cars are already getting collision avoidance systems that will start reducing accidents even without AV's.

AV's are just about money.   It's a continuation of voices from decades ago that wanted to bulldoze the suburbs that would have resulted in everyone being a tenant at the whim of corporate landlords.   There is no money to rebuild cities.   Infrastructure is already collpasing.   Cities are never really rebuilt, without UAE money.  All the cities that exist are where they are for a reason.  Ports like New Orleans or stops on interstates like Atlanta.

There is no future of guaranteed income and living from brew pub to brew pub.   Uber would tell you when to go to work and when to go home if you can't pay what they demand.   Those who can pay for premium service will be allowed to go ahead of you in traffic in a clusterfark that will make the loss of Net Neutrailty seem like a trivial affair.
 
2018-02-02 12:33:33 PM  

Luse: Somehow I don't recall this step being mentioned by the Utopians.


Really? It's a pretty standard talking point.

IMO it's a load of crap. I'm going to want my own self driving car because I don't want to have to schelp all my stuff around every time would have to change cars.
 
2018-02-02 12:48:04 PM  
use CEI in the pronhub search
I'll wait
 
2018-02-02 01:07:46 PM  

Krieghund: Luse: Somehow I don't recall this step being mentioned by the Utopians.

Really? It's a pretty standard talking point.

IMO it's a load of crap. I'm going to want my own self driving car because I don't want to have to schelp all my stuff around every time would have to change cars.


They usually tout this as one of the benefits, not that you would forever be doomed to robot Uber. I'm with you, even with self driving I want my own. First command I'd test, "Car! I'm home, take me drunk!"
 
2018-02-02 01:20:35 PM  

sirrerun: And the Competitive Enterprise Institute has a problem with this because...?


Think tank and lobbying group names are ALWAYS the opposite of reality.
 
2018-02-02 01:23:35 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

You don't get to play the victim when you act like this TODAY.
 
2018-02-02 01:27:54 PM  
shiat, wrong thread
 
2018-02-02 01:46:19 PM  
Did the article change after the first crop of commenters or something?  CEI is *against* restricting autonomous vehicles to big fleets.  It is criticizing Uber, ZipCars, Lyft, et. al.
 
2018-02-02 01:49:41 PM  
Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem
 
2018-02-02 01:58:07 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem


Self driving cars aren't supposed to solve parking problems, but they can help simply because you don't have to walk 12 blocks after you find a spot.
 
2018-02-02 02:01:04 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem


Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.

Suppose it costs $10,000 to make, $15,000 to own. $2,000/year for insurance, repairs and fuel by manufacturer, $2,500/year for insurance/repair/fuel by owner (because we don't get discounts for repairs and insurance, and possibly fuel). Amortize over 10 years is $250/month for manufacturer's cost. $333/month for individual owner's cost. The car manufacturer only needs to rent out the car for $10/day for 25 days to break even. An individual would need to rent out the car for $13/day for the same 25 days to break even. If these cars charge a flat fee of $2/hr for local travel, that would be 5 hours versus 6.5 hours of use.
 
2018-02-02 02:02:02 PM  

bhcompy: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Self driving cars aren't supposed to solve parking problems, but they can help simply because you don't have to walk 12 blocks after you find a spot.


Exactly. The car drops you off at your destination. It then drives itself to its designated parking location, or goes about finding another fare to pick up.
 
2018-02-02 02:12:35 PM  

Luse: First command I'd test, "Car! I'm home, take me drunk!"


I love that the car would need to figure out what you meant:

IF @home TAKETO bar
ELSE TAKETO home
 
2018-02-02 02:28:09 PM  

dericwater: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.



I would want to own a self-driving car.  And I would want to own it for much the same reason I own my current car.  To me, the advantage of a self-driving car is that I would get the time used in my commute back to read, study, even watch tv.  It turns commuting time into limited leisure time.
 
2018-02-02 02:31:46 PM  

Krieghund: Luse: First command I'd test, "Car! I'm home, take me drunk!"

I love that the car would need to figure out what you meant:

IF @home TAKETO bar
ELSE TAKETO home


If it can figure out which bar has the beers I like and the cheapest shots I'm pre-ordering one right now!
 
2018-02-02 02:58:23 PM  

dericwater: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.

Suppose it costs $10,000 to make, $15,000 to own. $2,000/year for insurance, repairs and fuel by manufacturer, $2,500/year for insurance/repair/fuel by owner (because we don't get discounts for repairs and insurance, and possibly fuel). Amortize over 10 years is $250/month for manufacturer's cost. $333/month for individual owner's cost. The car manufacturer only needs to rent out the car for $10/day for 25 days to break even. An individual would need to rent out the car for $13/day for the same 25 days to break even. If these cars charge a flat fee of $2/hr for local travel, that would be 5 hours versus 6.5 hours of use.


Or, like cars people already own and are used to paying for, and there won't be additional costs because you don't have to pay for a rent company's profits, wages, housing, and electricity.

Plus with owning people would be certain that a car would be available during peak travelling hours because no company will keep enough cars to supply every commuter that wants one of theirs. Why? Because they will be sitting in a lot somewhere wasting space and energy. Why own a 100 cars when you only have them for bussiness purposes when 30% of them will be sitting idle 80% of the day.

The demand created by grandmas who need a trip to the library, people who need to go get groceries/go to the doctor, and the children who need to go to their sportsball club are far better spaced over the day and won't come anywhere near the need for peak capacity. As evidenced by the fact that rush hour exists and roads are way, way less congested over the rest of the day.

/And why would I rent it out?
//The whole benefit of owning is not having to share
 
2018-02-02 03:39:22 PM  

Luse: [img.fark.net image 850x566]
You don't get to play the victim when you act like this TODAY.


Wow, which thread were you actually aiming for??
 
2018-02-02 06:54:04 PM  

Luse: Somehow I don't recall this step being mentioned by the Utopians. I was assured that within 5 years all normal cars will be pushed off the road by ridiculous insurance rates and everyone will have one of these.

Any.....day......now


This never made any sense. The first people to get self-driving cars are going to be the people who can save the most on insurance, because they pay the most, because they are the shiattiest drivers. The remaining people will be lower risk, so losses and therefore premiums will go down.
 
2018-02-02 06:58:49 PM  

DerAppie: dericwater: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.

Suppose it costs $10,000 to make, $15,000 to own. $2,000/year for insurance, repairs and fuel by manufacturer, $2,500/year for insurance/repair/fuel by owner (because we don't get discounts for repairs and insurance, and possibly fuel). Amortize over 10 years is $250/month for manufacturer's cost. $333/month for individual owner's cost. The car manufacturer only needs to rent out the car for $10/day for 25 days to break even. An individual would need to rent out the car for $13/day for the same 25 days to break even. If these cars charge a flat fee of $2/hr for local travel, that would be 5 hours versus 6.5 hours of use.

Or, like cars people already own and are used to paying for, and there won't be additional costs because you don't have to pay for a rent company's profits, wages, housing, and electricity.

Plus with owning people would be certain that a car would be available during peak travelling hours because no company will keep enough cars to supply every commuter that wants one of theirs. Why? Because they will be sitting in a lot somewhere wasting space and energy. Why own a 100 cars when you only have them for bussiness purposes when 30% of them will be sitting idle 80% of the day.

The demand created by grandmas who need a trip to the library, people who need to go get groceries/go to the doctor, and the children who need to go to their sportsball club are far better spaced over the day and won't come anywhere near the need for peak capacity. As evidenced by the fact that rush hour exists and road ...


Companies will learn how many is needed to handle 100% of the need. There will always be more cars than demand. And there will be shared rides, much like Uber Pool or Lyft Connect (or whatever it's called). You might want that ride just for yourself. But someone is willing to pay 30% less to share the car with another going the same way. The car companies can also charge surge pricing to induce people to use cars during non-peak hours. Most people's work can now be done almost anywhere, so it's possible to schedule your work time to use transportation during non-peak hours.

As for paying for profits, wages, housing and electricity, what do you think is built into the price of car now? And given that there's a longer supply chain for cars sold as opposed to rent directly from manufacturer, there will be fewer supply chain margins to pay into.

The basic fact is that a car is a woefully underutilized asset. When you have an asset that is used about 4% of the time, it's underutilized and it may be cheaper to rent than own.
 
2018-02-02 07:12:24 PM  

dericwater: There will always be more cars than demand.


Just like you never wait for a taxi, Uber, Lyft, gypsy cab, horse drawn carriage, or other means of small scale conveyance?
 
2018-02-02 07:45:42 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: sirrerun: And the Competitive Enterprise Institute has a problem with this because...?

Think tank and lobbying group names are ALWAYS the opposite of reality.


It's one reason I had difficulty with Net Neutrality
 
2018-02-02 07:51:36 PM  

bhcompy: dericwater: There will always be more cars than demand.

Just like you never wait for a taxi, Uber, Lyft, gypsy cab, horse drawn carriage, or other means of small scale conveyance?


Are you stupid or an idiot?
 
2018-02-02 08:09:59 PM  

DerAppie: dericwater: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.

Suppose it costs $10,000 to make, $15,000 to own. $2,000/year for insurance, repairs and fuel by manufacturer, $2,500/year for insurance/repair/fuel by owner (because we don't get discounts for repairs and insurance, and possibly fuel). Amortize over 10 years is $250/month for manufacturer's cost. $333/month for individual owner's cost. The car manufacturer only needs to rent out the car for $10/day for 25 days to break even. An individual would need to rent out the car for $13/day for the same 25 days to break even. If these cars charge a flat fee of $2/hr for local travel, that would be 5 hours versus 6.5 hours of use.

Or, like cars people already own and are used to paying for, and there won't be additional costs because you don't have to pay for a rent company's profits, wages, housing, and electricity.

Plus with owning people would be certain that a car would be available during peak travelling hours because no company will keep enough cars to supply every commuter that wants one of theirs. Why? Because they will be sitting in a lot somewhere wasting space and energy. Why own a 100 cars when you only have them for bussiness purposes when 30% of them will be sitting idle 80% of the day.

The demand created by grandmas who need a trip to the library, people who need to go get groceries/go to the doctor, and the children who need to go to their sportsball club are far better spaced over the day and won't come anywhere near the need for peak capacity. As evidenced by the fact that rush hour exists and roads are way, way less congested over the rest of the day.

/And why would I rent it out?
//The whole benefit of owning is not having to share


See, you have to argue against the logic of chodes who think we should have a subscription model for our clothes, too.
 
2018-02-02 10:57:29 PM  

BigNumber12: Luse: [img.fark.net image 850x566]
You don't get to play the victim when you act like this TODAY.

Wow, which thread were you actually aiming for??


Trust me, it's not worth it. I've always known people can convince themselves of anything but the level of obtuse I saw in there I am not willing to inflict on another human being.
 
2018-02-02 11:00:01 PM  

dericwater: Companies will learn how many is needed to handle 100% of the need. There will always be more cars than demand.


WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!

That's not how you maximize profits. You have a fleet that is sufficient for 90% of the time and try to pick up additional rush units for rushes. Not conjecture, this is how most major parcel services operate. Before you object that you are not a parcel, you are to a robot car and the board of directors that owns it.
 
2018-02-02 11:05:26 PM  

Fano: See, you have to argue against the logic of chodes who think we should have a subscription model for our clothes, too.


I wish they were so plentiful when I was unfortunate enough to be in car sales. Leases were always the biggest money makers.
 
2018-02-02 11:11:28 PM  

Luse: dericwater: Companies will learn how many is needed to handle 100% of the need. There will always be more cars than demand.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!

That's not how you maximize profits. You have a fleet that is sufficient for 90% of the time and try to pick up additional rush units for rushes. Not conjecture, this is how most major parcel services operate. Before you object that you are not a parcel, you are to a robot car and the board of directors that owns it.


Right this minute, there are Ubers, Lyfts and taxi cabs patrolling out on the street waiting for a call. See, supply exceeding demand. You always want supply exceeding demand, because otherwise, you don't know what you're missing. If you always sell out product X, you don't know what the demand is. Maybe it's just one more customer wanting to buy X, or maybe it's 100,000,000 more customers wanting to buy X. Once you get traction (acknowledged adoption of your product or service), you provide as much as you can to make sure you exceed the demand, if you can. Then, you dial it down from there. Otherwise, you leave money on the table.
 
2018-02-02 11:17:35 PM  

Fano: DerAppie: dericwater: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.

Suppose it costs $10,000 to make, $15,000 to own. $2,000/year for insurance, repairs and fuel by manufacturer, $2,500/year for insurance/repair/fuel by owner (because we don't get discounts for repairs and insurance, and possibly fuel). Amortize over 10 years is $250/month for manufacturer's cost. $333/month for individual owner's cost. The car manufacturer only needs to rent out the car for $10/day for 25 days to break even. An individual would need to rent out the car for $13/day for the same 25 days to break even. If these cars charge a flat fee of $2/hr for local travel, that would be 5 hours versus 6.5 hours of use.

Or, like cars people already own and are used to paying for, and there won't be additional costs because you don't have to pay for a rent company's profits, wages, housing, and electricity.

Plus with owning people would be certain that a car would be available during peak travelling hours because no company will keep enough cars to supply every commuter that wants one of theirs. Why? Because they will be sitting in a lot somewhere wasting space and energy. Why own a 100 cars when you only have them for bussiness purposes when 30% of them will be sitting idle 80% of the day.

The demand created by grandmas who need a trip to the library, people who need to go get groceries/go to the doctor, and the children who need to go to their sportsball club are far better spaced over the day and won't come anywhere near the need for peak capacity. As evidenced by the fact that rush hour exist ...


What, exactly, is the benefit of owning a car? So you can spill your drinks with impunity? The value of owning a car is getting less and less glamorous. It was, at one time, a chick magnet, a real convenience, or a life-saver. Today, there are so many alternatives to eliminate that need. In the meantime, you need to repair, refuel, maintain, insure, and protect from theft/break-in. It's a boat anchor requiring your responsibility in knowing where it is and the condition of about a thousand moving parts of that car. Windshield doesn't roll down? $$$ Fungus got into the ventilation system and stinking up the vents? $$$. Brake calipers not properly aligned by service person? $$$ Car sitting out in the sun too often? New wipers, new paint, new wax job, new rubber gaskets around windows, new windows, new seats because the old one's been fried to a crisp. $$$$$$$. The glory of having a car? Uh, I don't know. A savings of 3 minutes compared to calling in an Uber/Lyft?
 
2018-02-02 11:53:59 PM  

dericwater: Fano: DerAppie: dericwater: drjekel_mrhyde: Self driving privately owned cars still won't solve NYC's parking problem

Who would want to own a self-driving car? The whole point of a self-driving car is maintenance-free, responsibility-free, ownership-free. I can only see wanting to have a self-driving car only to rent it out to others. But then, I can't compete with the manufacturers who can get a much lower rate on repairs, insurance and not having to pay retail for the car.

Suppose it costs $10,000 to make, $15,000 to own. $2,000/year for insurance, repairs and fuel by manufacturer, $2,500/year for insurance/repair/fuel by owner (because we don't get discounts for repairs and insurance, and possibly fuel). Amortize over 10 years is $250/month for manufacturer's cost. $333/month for individual owner's cost. The car manufacturer only needs to rent out the car for $10/day for 25 days to break even. An individual would need to rent out the car for $13/day for the same 25 days to break even. If these cars charge a flat fee of $2/hr for local travel, that would be 5 hours versus 6.5 hours of use.

Or, like cars people already own and are used to paying for, and there won't be additional costs because you don't have to pay for a rent company's profits, wages, housing, and electricity.

Plus with owning people would be certain that a car would be available during peak travelling hours because no company will keep enough cars to supply every commuter that wants one of theirs. Why? Because they will be sitting in a lot somewhere wasting space and energy. Why own a 100 cars when you only have them for bussiness purposes when 30% of them will be sitting idle 80% of the day.

The demand created by grandmas who need a trip to the library, people who need to go get groceries/go to the doctor, and the children who need to go to their sportsball club are far better spaced over the day and won't come anywhere near the need for peak capacity. As evidenced by the fact that rush hour exist ...

What, exactly, is the benefit of owning a car? So you can spill your drinks with impunity? The value of owning a car is getting less and less glamorous. It was, at one time, a chick magnet, a real convenience, or a life-saver. Today, there are so many alternatives to eliminate that need. In the meantime, you need to repair, refuel, maintain, insure, and protect from theft/break-in. It's a boat anchor requiring your responsibility in knowing where it is and the condition of about a thousand moving parts of that car. Windshield doesn't roll down? $$$ Fungus got into the ventilation system and stinking up the vents? $$$. Brake calipers not properly aligned by service person? $$$ Car sitting out in the sun too often? New wipers, new paint, new wax job, new rubber gaskets around windows, new windows, new seats because the old one's been fried to a crisp. $$$$$$$. The glory of having a car? Uh, I don't know. A savings of 3 minutes compared to calling in an Uber/Lyft?


Impoverished thinking detected
 
2018-02-03 03:56:43 AM  

dericwater: Companies will learn how many is needed to handle 100% of the need. There will always be more cars than demand.


Not when demand during peak hours is way higher the demand during the rest of the day. According to this rush our traffic driver drive quite a few miles more than people do between rush hours.

Why would they cover for everyone when it will mean purchasing a lot of capital that will be sitting in the lot most of the day and increase their cost of bussiness when their are competitors to price out if the market?

And there will be shared rides, much like Uber Pool or Lyft Connect (or whatever it's called). You might want that ride just for yourself. But someone is willing to pay 30% less to share the car with another going the same way.

So, how well do busses do? How many carpool right now? Those are all cost saving options that are under utilised right now. Why would that suddenly change?

The car companies can also charge surge pricing to induce people to use cars during non-peak hours. Most people's work can now be done almost anywhere, so it's possible to schedule your work time to use transportation during non-peak hours.

I think you are overestimating this one, and even if it can be done anywhere, most people who have a job that can be done anywhere don't use that option. And that isn't because they enjoy sitting in traffic.

They aren't allowed, the infrastructure doesn't exist, etc. Why would they change the way they have always done their job which included driving themselves when the only thing changed is that they don't drive themselves? They didn't do flexible scheduling to evade rush hour when they actually had to keep their mind on traffic.

As for paying for profits, wages, housing and electricity, what do you think is built into the price of car now? And given that there's a longer supply chain for cars sold as opposed to rent directly from manufacturer, there will be fewer supply chain margins to pay into.

Which could also be solved by buying directly from the producer. But more on point: why do you assume the producers will be the ones renting out the cars? It isn't a branch of the economy they are active in now, why would that change? Do you think Volkswagen will place thousands of hubs throughout the country rather than just selling to the middle men like they do now? If self-driving cars are going to be rented rather than owned, then car dealers will turn into rental centers rather than producers renting them out themselves.

The basic fact is that a car is a woefully underutilized asset. When you have an asset that is used about 4% of the time, it's underutilized and it may be cheaper to rent than own.

That is true, but if you need to be somewhere in a hurry (say work) and you and 999 others are fishing in a pool containing only 900 cars, you can't keep saying "sorry I'll be an hour late because I can't get a car" several months. Because I still don't believe the rental companies will keep enough cars in stock to supply every demand including rush hour.

Plus the whole keeping your stuff in it, and the fact that it will likely change it from a household owning 1 rather than two cars because now the others in the household can make use of it as well.

/Willing to be proven wrong, but seeing is believing
//So in, say, 20 years we'll revisit this and see how many of my issues turned out to be true
///Formatting issue
 
2018-02-03 10:28:23 AM  

Luse: BigNumber12: Luse: [img.fark.net image 850x566]
You don't get to play the victim when you act like this TODAY.

Wow, which thread were you actually aiming for??

Trust me, it's not worth it. I've always known people can convince themselves of anything but the level of obtuse I saw in there I am not willing to inflict on another human being.


So, it was clearly still Fark
 
2018-02-03 10:38:43 AM  

DerAppie: dericwater: Companies will learn how many is needed to handle 100% of the need. There will always be more cars than demand.

Not when demand during peak hours is way higher the demand during the rest of the day. According to this rush our traffic driver drive quite a few miles more than people do between rush hours.

Why would they cover for everyone when it will mean purchasing a lot of capital that will be sitting in the lot most of the day and increase their cost of bussiness when their are competitors to price out if the market?

And there will be shared rides, much like Uber Pool or Lyft Connect (or whatever it's called). You might want that ride just for yourself. But someone is willing to pay 30% less to share the car with another going the same way.

So, how well do busses do? How many carpool right now? Those are all cost saving options that are under utilised right now. Why would that suddenly change?

The car companies can also charge surge pricing to induce people to use cars during non-peak hours. Most people's work can now be done almost anywhere, so it's possible to schedule your work time to use transportation during non-peak hours.

I think you are overestimating this one, and even if it can be done anywhere, most people who have a job that can be done anywhere don't use that option. And that isn't because they enjoy sitting in traffic.

They aren't allowed, the infrastructure doesn't exist, etc. Why would they change the way they have always done their job which included driving themselves when the only thing changed is that they don't drive themselves? They didn't do flexible scheduling to evade rush hour when they actually had to keep their mind on traffic.

As for paying for profits, wages, housing and electricity, what do you think is built into the price of car now? And given that there's a longer supply chain for cars sold as opposed to rent directly from manufacturer, there will be fewer supply chain margins to pay into.

Which could also be solved by buying directly from the producer. But more on point: why do you assume the producers will be the ones renting out the cars? It isn't a branch of the economy they are active in now, why would that change? Do you think Volkswagen will place thousands of hubs throughout the country rather than just selling to the middle men like they do now? If self-driving cars are going to be rented rather than owned, then car dealers will turn into rental centers rather than producers renting them out themselves.

The basic fact is that a car is a woefully underutilized asset. When you have an asset that is used about 4% of the time, it's underutilized and it may be cheaper to rent than own.

That is true, but if you need to be somewhere in a hurry (say work) and you and 999 others are fishing in a pool containing only 900 cars, you can't keep saying "sorry I'll be an hour late because I can't get a car" several months. Because I still don't believe the rental companies will keep enough cars in stock to supply every demand including rush hour.

Plus the whole keeping your stuff in it, and the fact that it will likely change it from a household owning 1 rather than two cars because now the others in the household can make use of it as well.

/Willing to be proven wrong, but seeing is believing
//So in, say, 20 years we'll revisit this and see how many of my issues turned out to be true
///Formatting issue


Yep.

How about "car manufacturers would like to sell more cars. Renting out cars does not achieve this goal."
 
2018-02-03 02:56:11 PM  

dericwater: Luse: dericwater: Companies will learn how many is needed to handle 100% of the need. There will always be more cars than demand.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG!!!!

That's not how you maximize profits. You have a fleet that is sufficient for 90% of the time and try to pick up additional rush units for rushes. Not conjecture, this is how most major parcel services operate. Before you object that you are not a parcel, you are to a robot car and the board of directors that owns it.

Right this minute, there are Ubers, Lyfts and taxi cabs patrolling out on the street waiting for a call. See, supply exceeding demand. You always want supply exceeding demand, because otherwise, you don't know what you're missing. If you always sell out product X, you don't know what the demand is. Maybe it's just one more customer wanting to buy X, or maybe it's 100,000,000 more customers wanting to buy X. Once you get traction (acknowledged adoption of your product or service), you provide as much as you can to make sure you exceed the demand, if you can. Then, you dial it down from there. Otherwise, you leave money on the table.


Again, wonderful theory. Look at how business actually operate. Even the businesses you cite use surge pricing. To assume that things will morph into how they SHOULD operate is the peak of naivety.
 
2018-02-03 02:57:22 PM  

dericwater: What, exactly, is the benefit of owning a car? So you can spill your drinks with impunity? The value of owning a car is getting less and less glamorous. It was, at one time, a chick magnet, a real convenience, or a life-saver. Today, there are so many alternatives to eliminate that need. In the meantime, you need to repair, refuel, maintain, insure, and protect from theft/break-in. It's a boat anchor requiring your responsibility in knowing where it is and the condition of about a thousand moving parts of that car. Windshield doesn't roll down? $$$ Fungus got into the ventilation system and stinking up the vents? $$$. Brake calipers not properly aligned by service person? $$$ Car sitting out in the sun too often? New wipers, new paint, new wax job, new rubber gaskets around windows, new windows, new seats because the old one's been fried to a crisp. $$$$$$$. The glory of having a car? Uh, I don't know. A savings of 3 minutes compared to calling in an Uber/Lyft?


Wanna know how I know you live in a city?
 
2018-02-03 02:59:14 PM  

BigNumber12: Luse: BigNumber12: Luse: [img.fark.net image 850x566]
You don't get to play the victim when you act like this TODAY.

Wow, which thread were you actually aiming for??

Trust me, it's not worth it. I've always known people can convince themselves of anything but the level of obtuse I saw in there I am not willing to inflict on another human being.

So, it was clearly still Fark


You know it!
 
2018-02-03 03:49:44 PM  
Uber wants to outlaw privately owned self-driving cars because privately-owned or community-owned self-driving cars are the death of Uber's business model.

That being said: autonomous vehicles coupled with a per-mile tax on city driving to fight congestion would basically fix the commuting situation in most big cities.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report