back to article Driverless cars deal death to Detroit, says Barclays

Shared driverless cars will kill off the multi-car household, and a Barclays analyst reckons that points to a calamitous future for Detroit. The bank's Brian Johnson reckons the driverless world will drive down US auto sales by 40 per cent over the next 25 years, and will force GM and Ford to slash their output, he reckons. …

  1. Ole Juul

    Less freedom in return for lower costs

    The costs sound excellent. Not having to pay huge insurance premiums in order to have the ability to drive over people's lawns, down the sidewalk, or aim at someone in a phone booth is probably fine with most people who will likely take the savings in return for relinquishing those freedoms.

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Less freedom in return for lower costs

      I don't like owning cars, and I don't like driving them.

      But I'll take both of those over hiring self-driving cars any day.

      I'll also note that the two cars my wife and I own are suited for different purposes, and neither could entirely be replaced by local hire-per-trip vehicles, autonomous or not.

      But who knows? Here in the US, the proportion of young adults without driving licenses is down significantly. Much of the area of the US is too rural for hired AVs to be useful, but most of the population is (of course) concentrated in urban and exurban areas where they could be used.

  2. James 51

    But driverless cars will cost more (because of all the tech), need more servicing and will have a shorter life on the road because of all those extra miles they'll be doing. Then they can drive themselves to the scrap heap even if they have a few more years in them (just like print cartridges). There's plenty of opportunity for the worst of the IT and car industries to combine here.

    1. Thorne

      Yes/no

      In all likelihood driverless cars will be electric and require less maintance than current cars. The requirement for safety will no be as bad so will cheaper and quite possibly made of printed plastic and carbon fibre.

      The real requirement for replacement will be the electronics. Newer systems will be faster and safer and old cars won't be compatible and as such old cars will be removed from the roads.

      1. Robert Helpmann??
        Childcatcher

        Yes/no

        First, I would imagine the greatest cost for replacements will be for tires and batteries, assuming electric cars. Second, old cars will not be removed from the road due to compatibility issues for a very long time as the onus will be on the incoming models to conform to what is already in place. It will take the better part of a human lifetime before that happens.

        As for ride sharing arrangements instead of ownership, some people will go for it, especially in densely populated urban areas, but I agree more with the author's 10% figure rather than Barclays' much larger guess at least - for the next several decades. I really want my personal chauffeured limo, but I am not so sure I want to share it with random people who may leave gifts for me to find on my commute home from work.

        1. strum

          Re: Yes/no

          >old cars will not be removed from the road due to compatibility issues for a very long time as the onus will be on the incoming models to conform to what is already in place. It will take the better part of a human lifetime before that happens.

          I wouldn't be so sure about that. Autonomous cars will only be acceptable on public roads when they are (actuarily) safer than the average human driver. When that line is crossed, what price insurance for a human driver?

          Once it starts, things could change very quickly indeed.

          1. LucreLout

            Re: Yes/no

            When that line is crossed, what price insurance for a human driver?

            Why should it change? (It will, but not specifically in the way you think)

            The price paid now encompasses all of the costs, losses, and required profit for the insurer already. Yes, I know most only make money due to investment gains on the premiums, but lets stick with net figures for now.

            So the human will now be having even fewer accidents as the driving test can be made properly hard, and the age threshold for driving raised to 25, thus eliminating more than half of all road deaths.

            We could then set a maximum age limit for manual driving at say.... 75. No loss of social mobility with automated cars. We can revise the numbers as data becomes clearer, but that will clear out another significant tranche of accidents (George has been driving for 60 years and never had an accident... he has seen a lot in his rear view mirror though).

            This, however ignores the politics of control that comes with surrendering freedom, but that is a subject for another time/post/thread.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: age threshold for driving raised to 25

              I know the statisticians all fixate on that number, but I think they are wrong. I don't think there's anything magical that happens at 25. I think at 25 you've finally built up enough learning experience driving that the numbers change. Moving the driving age up won't change the mechanic, just the numbers where the changes happen.

          2. BitDr

            Re: Yes/no

            On the other side of the insurance question; when driverless cats are the norm, how will the insurance companies justify their high premiums? Human driver favor their bottom line.

        2. Thorne

          Re: Yes/no

          "old cars will not be removed from the road due to compatibility issues for a very long time as the onus will be on the incoming models to conform to what is already in place. It will take the better part of a human lifetime before that happens."

          No it won't. A lot of countries don't allow vehicles more than 5 years old on the road already. Each year there will be a standard to meet and any vehicle incapable of meeting that standard won't be registered.

          1. nrthnhorzn

            Re: Yes/no

            This county sure does not abide by any 5 year old rule, nor will it anytime soon. Another ridiculous statement.

          2. BitDr

            Re: Yes/no

            Every five years? The auto manufacturers must LOVE those nations. I have a 2004 Toyota echo/yaris with 500 000 Kms on it, it still has the original shock absorbers (my mechanic was amazed that they perform like new). It passes annual emissions tests with flying colors. Regular rust protection means it is structurally sound.

          3. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Yes/no

            "A lot of countries don't allow vehicles more than 5 years old on the road already"

            Japan... and it's a form of subsidy for the manufacturers. Fine when it was a booming economy but not so wonderful now for the average citizen.

            5year old japanese cars are exported en-masse and the single biggest problem with them tends to be knackered engines, as the oil has _never_ been changed in the vehicle's life. The other big issue is rust. JDM vehicles have virtually no corrosion protection built in.

            The first won't be much of an issue with electric drivetrains. The second is more problematic.

        3. itzman

          Re: Yes/no

          I think you need to look at the proportion of people living in large cities vis-à-vis those in towns: MOST car journeys are urban or suburban, and short.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Not really

      95% of all vehicles sold are scrapped long before they reach their full mileage projection.

      An autonomous self-driving vehicle should be able to clock more than 400k with ease. Compared to that a human driven vehicle will end up being scrapped < 150. It is staying in the parking lot with a layer of salt on it which kills most cars in USA and Europe, not the actual driving.

      As far as maintenance - electrical drive train and autonomous driving are a marriage made in heaven (or hell if you hold GM stock). Less than 5% of the maintenance of a normal vehicle. The recharge, etc issues also become irrelevant as the vehicle proceeds to charge itself when it is unoccupied.

      1. Medixstiff

        Re: Not really

        "95% of all vehicles sold are scrapped long before they reach their full mileage projection."

        Interesting statistic, in Australia we see cars, especially taxis' with close to 1 million KM's on them, so what is supposed to be the full mileage potential of a car?

        In Western Australia, they predict we will have more single's than families by 2025, so I doubt very much will change when it comes to number of cars sold.

        1. KjetilS

          Re: Not really

          I'm guessing longer average driving distances (so less short runs, and having the engine run at operating termperature for longer periods) and a lot less salt on the roads (do Australia ever salt roads?) makes cars last longer

        2. gnasher729 Silver badge

          Re: Not really

          "Full mileage projection" seems to be 500,000 to 600,000 miles then. "We see cars" presumably refers to much fewer than 5% of all the cars, so the "95% are scrapped long before their full mileage projection" seems right.

          "Who would want a shared driverless car if it turns up full of pewk, half eaten hamburgers, cigarette smoke, bogies, etc?" - Well, isn't that a problem that is solved very easily? The ride sharing company would know who had the car before you, so you complain, you get another car, the dirty driver gets a nice bill both for cleaning and for educational purposes, and if that bill isn't paid, that's one driver that doesn't take part in ride sharing anymore.

          1. Tom 13

            Re: so you complain, you get another car,

            Except that's not how the real world works. In the real world, you're already late for your appointment so you can't reschedule and you have to take the puke filled car, hopefully not puking yourself because of the stench. Maybe you complain and you get a full refund after the trip, but the trip itself is hell so you decide to buy a car for yourself as a permanent fix to the problem.

      2. disgruntled yank

        Re: Not really

        We got about 130 or 140 thousand miles on the last car traded in. It was a bit rusty, but its chief ailments were in the engine, and a general looseness in the joints, caused by driving over potholed streets. No doubt the electrical drive train will last better, but unless the pothole evasion systems are really good, driverless cars are still going to wear out at a fair rate.

      3. nrthnhorzn

        Re: Not really

        Cars with less than 150k miles in this country are not typically scrapped, they are sold as used cars, or sold as parts cars. That is just an idiotic statement.

        The last three cars I have owned had well in excess of 150k miles when I traded them in.

      4. Tom 13

        Re: Not really

        Both you and Barclays are smoking stuff that ain't even legal in Holland. Cars that clock over 100K miles are a rarity and notable because of it. Higher usage doesn't change that. Yes, most cars in the US get scrapped between 75K and 150K, pretty much because at that point it costs more to fix broken systems on the car than buying a new one.

        The again, since we know you smoke the Warmist crack pipe, your lies are no surprise.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Most likely if the car is being run pretty constantly throughout the day, those miles will be like motorway miles, with the engine running hot all the time.

      Coaches run pretty much constantly and the can run up a serious amount of miles between services because they are running hot rather then the cold/lukewarm of most domestic cars.

      1. LucreLout

        @Skelband

        Coaches run pretty much constantly and the can run up a serious amount of miles between services because they are running hot rather then the cold/lukewarm of most domestic cars.

        Yes, exactly.

        What happens when the engine cools is that condensation forms within it (crankcase usually), which emulsifies the oil, reducing its lubricating properties. Lots of short trips bring much more condensation than fewer longer ones, thus doing less damage to the oil.

        Obviously, you have to factor in sheer too, which is where the long chain molecules get broken apart, also reducing lubrication. This is why you eventually have to service everything, even long distance coaches.

        There seems to me no reason that a JohnnyCab running more or less constantly for say 18 hours a day couldn't clock up something in the order of 40k between oil changes, and vastly more between full services. Yes, I know most manufacturers service schedules are for oil changes every couple of years already, but they are, for want of a better word, lies. Lies aimed at selling cars to fleet buyers with massive service schedules, because the manufacturers know when the engine does go bang due to lack of servicing, it will be long out of warranty and out of the fleet managers hands.

    4. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Shorter life on the road? Not at all. Shorter life off the road, quite possibly, but shared driverless cars would spend more hours on the road exactly because they are doing more miles.

    5. LucreLout

      There's plenty of opportunity for the worst of the IT and car industries to combine here.

      Blue Scream Of Death?

      1. James 51

        I was thinking more of designed obsolescence and using drm to fleece customers. Imagine that coffee pod saga but with car parts and old software in cars that isn't updated and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

  3. Thorne

    Maybe one car will be enough for a family

    But there could be more cars as people who cannot drive will be able to own one.

    The elderly, school kids and the disabled.

    1. Tromos

      Re: Maybe one car will be enough for a family

      I really don't see many families reducing their cars and apart from the non-driver take-up there will also be a number of single people getting a second car for use while the first is charging (unless instant charging/swappable batteries become ubiquitous).

      1. LucreLout

        Re: Maybe one car will be enough for a family

        there will also be a number of ... people getting a second car

        Yes. My family have three already - My car, the wifes, and my track day car. We'll need one for the child eventually, which will make 4. Then I'll probably buy a JohnnyCab too, decked out as an office / study, and will keep my fast car as my fun plaything, and keep the track day car for, well, track days.

        Why the number owned is an issue I don't understand (I have offstreet parking for two of mine, with space I could use for a third)? Number on the road is what matters, but that will increase as people move away from public transport to mobile work places or games rooms at rush hour.

        Ultimately, unpopular as it will be with the green lobby, more space will have to be set aside and more roads will have to be built.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Maybe one car will be enough for a family

          "Number on the road is what matters"

          Or parked on the side of it. There are a lot of london suburbs where there are more cars than parking spots.

  4. bazza Silver badge

    Misses the piint

    This completely misses the key selling point of a car. People buy cars to have as their own, that's the whole point.

    Everyone knows that there are plenty of people out there who'd have no respect for a shared facility. Who would want a shared driverless car if it turns up full of pewk, half eaten hamburgers, cigarette smoke, bogies, etc?

    Having your own car is a guaranteed (unless they crash into you) way of insulating oneself from the careless and thoughtless behaviour of others, even if they are family. No one wants to lose that, automated or not.

    Oh, and this rather presupposes that anyone can get a fully automated unsupervised vehicle driving on the road. I doubt that they'll ever manage that. Legally at the moment you have to be behind the wheel, sober and qualified and paying attention. Hardly seems worth it to me!

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Misses the piint

      Legally at the moment you have to be behind the wheel, sober and qualified and paying attention.

      Exactly.This could be offered as a sort of "autopilot" driver aid, which I can see being attractive for people who spend a lot of time stuck in motorway queues, but if it still requires a sober and qualified driver to be present it isn't going to replace ordinary cars.

      Alternatively, as the article,suggests, it will become a kind of robot taxi, essentially a "robo-uber". That is likely to meet with pushback in two areas, just like the meatbag-uber:

      1) Taxi drivers will hate it, loss of jobs etc.

      2) Lawyers will love it. What happens when one of these vehicles is in an accident? The passengers (especialy in the USA) will look for someone to sue, and without a formal driver that will fall on (a) the owner, and/or (b) the manufacturer.

      If the owner has to have insurance to cover the likely $$m claim because someone spilt their coffee and so missed a critical business meeting it will be offputting to say the least. If that owner risks jail on similar grounds to someone who keeps a "dangerous animal" which bites someone then there will be even fewer takers. It will require a whole new set of laws. If the blame falls on the manufacturer then you only have to look at the PR effects of cases like the exploding Pintos and accelerating Toyotas to see how that will discourage Detroit, or anywhere else, from getting involved.

      As yet another driver aid gimmick, I can see it appearing. As to robo-taxis, though, I'm not holding my breath,

      1. Thorne

        Re: Misses the piint

        "Lawyers will love it. What happens when one of these vehicles is in an accident? The passengers (especialy in the USA) will look for someone to sue, and without a formal driver that will fall on (a) the owner, and/or (b) the manufacturer."

        Lawyers won't love it. The vehicles will be fitted with 360 degree cameras and in all likelihood the video footage will show their stupid client causing the accident.

        Robocars will result in less accidents meaning lawyers won't be able to chase ambulances as easily and will have to turn to an easier source of income like patent trolling......

        1. Tom 13

          Re: fitted with 360 degree cameras

          Yeah, they said that about speeding and red light cameras too. Hasn't stopped the lawyers. Only thing changed are the fees.

      2. LucreLout

        Re: Misses the piint

        Taxi drivers will hate it, loss of jobs etc.

        Lets call it what it is.... Loss of industry. Loss of jobs implies they might be able to get another or go self employed within their industry, and neither will be the case - taxi driver simply won't exist as a role, same as red flag waver, boiler man, cotton picker etc.

        Now the pros & cons of that are legion, depending on your view, but resistance will be futile - the same week these things get licenced for full auto is the last week any cab firms need drivers. Car manufacturers, if they have any sense, will set up taxi fleets with the first x000 they build, because it'll only need a phone app / web site, and a little software to run them.

        Hmm, how to get home today.... I could take the DLR, Tube, and a train... but they're on strike again... I had a Ford yesterday, I know, it's Friday [ok, it isn't], I'll treat myself to a Jag home. Clicket clickety car.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Misses the piint

          "Loss of industry."

          In the same way that working horses disappeared.

          It's been estimated that around 400 million driving jobs will go away - not just taxi drivers. Trucks are the obvious one for starters.

    2. P. Lee

      Re: Misses the piint

      The main issue is convenience. Driverless cars are possibly a bus/taxi replacement but unless there is a lot of spare capacity, people will still need their own car to ensure schedules are met.

      Also missing the point is that there is a peak usage for cars during the morning/evening rush hour. You need at least this many cars.

      The other problem is electric cars. Its all fun and games until you turn on the air-conditioning which is pretty much compulsory for at least some of the year in Australia. I can't see electric being an option here, even in a dense city, although you may be able to run a much smaller generator to keep such things going, or extend tram electrical infrastructure to cover all the streets.

      Seeing how people try to monetise the free car-parking spaces in the US, what happens when people hail shared cars and then try to auction off availability?

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Driverless cars are possibly a bus/taxi replacement

        Ding! Ding! Ding!

        Ladies, gentlemen, and geeks of all stripes: We have a WINNER!!!!

        To the extent automated cars replace Detroit it will be the bus, taxi, and train services that suffer. Frankly, I don't see them replacing Detroit either (well assuming you call what's happening in Detroit now functioning). They'll just manufacture the self-driving cars in addition to the other ones.

    3. strum

      Re: Misses the piint

      >. People buy cars to have as their own, that's the whole point.

      No. "The whole pomit" is being able to get to work/shops/leisure, when you want to. Not every driver is a society-phobe.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Misses the piint

      > Oh, and this rather presupposes that anyone can get a fully automated unsupervised vehicle driving on the road. I doubt that they'll ever manage that. Legally at the moment you have to be behind the wheel, sober and qualified and paying attention. Hardly seems worth it to me!

      Well if we believe Google's stats on the subject (what was it? 11 incidents, all caused by humans), they seem far more capable than the equivalent meatbags. Taking that with the fact that they're still at the prototype stage, there's every reason to believe that they would be much safer than human drivers.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hype

    We already have autonomous cars that we can hire, often at lower cost than owning and operating our own car - we call them taxis. Replacing a low-paid human with a shedload of computers, sensors and servos doesn't make it a magical new class of shared transport, although recognising that wouldn't make for a breathless headline-grabbing report for an "analyst", would it?

    1. P. Lee

      Re: Hype

      >Replacing a low-paid human with a shedload of computers, sensors and servos doesn't make it a magical new class of shared transport

      True, although even a low-paid human in the West will cost vastly more over the lifetime of the taxi than a stack of computers and servos (although most cars appear to have power-steering and braking already). If that's the case, the cost of taxis may fall considerably, leading to more people using shared cars than currently.

      You may also, however, attract people off buses and trains, leading to more road congestion.

      1. Thorne

        Re: Hype

        "You may also, however, attract people off buses and trains, leading to more road congestion."

        Yes but robocars will be able to drive faster and closer together, in formation meaning more cars can use the same roads.

        No more old guys in hats holding up the flow of traffic.

        1. Richard Jones 1
          Unhappy

          Re: Hype

          No more old guys in hats, (though what is a hat?) being held up because the young blood a little while ahead decided to remodel the hard landscaping and a few other cars while he was having fun. The last one near me took quarter of a day to clear up - about 6:00 until lunch time. It did not help he killed one passenger crippled another one, nearly murdered a woman coming the other way and missed a pedestrian by a couple of feet as he then went off road driving. Over 60 in a 40 area on bald tyres is not a pretty sight - neither is a banana shaped BMW.

          Perhaps self driving cars might have some benefits after all?

        2. Kubla Cant

          "No more old guys in hats holding up the flow of traffic"

          I'm an old guy. I sometimes wear a hat because it can be quite draughty in my open car at 100 mph. What should I do to avoid holding up the traffic?

          1. Rimpel

            "often at lower cost than owning and operating our own car"

            YMMV. Which is the point really.

          2. Solmyr ibn Wali Barad

            Re: "No more old guys in hats holding up the flow of traffic"

            There's nothing you can do. White Van Man will always catch you.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Hype

        "You may also, however, attract people off buses and trains, leading to more road congestion."

        Busses and trains are great things in peak periods. Not so much in offpeak. Expect to see automated minibusses and suchlike plying the routes outside of peak hours.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hype

      "often at lower cost than owning and operating our own car"

      A quick calculation for my normal journeys show that a taxi at their standard rates would cost me about £80,000 per year. Even if you do basic standard mileage you would be unlikely to get a return on using taxis over a car and that doesn't include when you need a vehicle to go and buy a load of diy goods, or tow a trailer or go on a camping holiday where you would need to hire a car/van and pay those rates on top.

      Then you've got the issue of not being able to get a cab on a friday night or refusing to travel to your destination etc.

      1. MrXavia

        Re: Hype

        A normal taxi costs £50+ round trip to my nearest town (and that is only 20 miles away).

        If I do that only twice a week and its already £5000/year.

        Taxis are only cost efficient if your in a town and travel rarely.

    3. breakfast Silver badge

      Re: Hype

      Autonomous cars will never be a match for real taxis until they can develop and share bigoted and/or racist opinions with their passengers. Although come to think of it plugging them into a twitter feed would probably do the job nicely, so maybe cabbies should be concerned.

  6. Captain DaFt

    John Deere's the real threat to car sales

    If they have their way, no one will be able to own their own farm equipment, and you know if they get away with this, auto manufacturers will jump on that wagon.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150513/18001030993/john-deere-clarifies-trying-to-abuse-copyright-law-to-stop-you-owning-your-own-tractor-because-it-cares-about-you.shtml

    And who's going to want to 'buy' a car if they can't own it?

    1. David Roberts
      Facepalm

      Re: John Deere's the real threat to car sales

      Sorry about the down vote.

      Bloody tablet switched from portrait to landscape in mid type, lost my post but recorded a keyboard finger tap as a vote.

      I would also like to plead guilty to a further 20 offences of random voting when incompetent scrolling has resulted in my finger touching a vote button.

      I realise this may have caused upset and offence to innocent posters and deeply regret my actions.

      1. Ralph B
        Facepalm

        @David Roberts, Re: John Deere's the real threat to car sales

        Sorry about the down vote. You can actually cancel it by giving an up vote instead, but since you didn't do it for Captain DaFt, I guess I won't do it for you either.

  7. David Roberts

    Parking?

    We live near a primary school.

    Twice daily there is the scrum from the school run.

    This can involve some quite innovative parking.

    So how will these driverless cars handle parking for 15 minutes in a congested residential area?

    Will all urban streets have to be upgraded to designated parking bays with machine readable markings?

    Will a herd of driverless cars just circle the block for 15 minutes?

    Will you have to book two trips with a flock of cars leaving and meeting a second flock of cars arriving?

    Can you mess with the system by parking in two bays with your old style car, or putting minor obstructions there?

    Programming conflict resolution where cars are trying to use the single lane between two rows of parked cars in opposite directions should also be fun.

    As others have said, sharing may be a theoretical aim but it is already possible with driven vehicles.

    First get people to share short journeys in electrical vehicles (such as local mini school shuttle buses) and then worry about replacing the driver to save money.

    Who was it who said "You will prise my steering wheel from my cold dead hands!"?

    1. breakfast Silver badge
      Terminator

      Re: Parking?

      I don't know who said it, but I am sure a correctly designed automated car would reply with "OFFER ACCEPTED."

    2. Thorne

      Re: Parking?

      "Who was it who said "You will prise my steering wheel from my cold dead hands!"?"

      The insurance companies will...........

  8. adam payne

    When are we going to see driverless buses and trains I wonder.

    1. SundogUK Silver badge

      Driver-less trains are fairly common already - the Singapore MRT system can and does run driver-less a lot of the time.

    2. dan1980

      Pretty sure the system in HK is driverless and doubtless there are others.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "When are we going to see driverless buses and trains I wonder."

      The DLR in london is driverless and so are a number of tube lines (though the "driver" still sits at the front to monitor the systems and open the doors). Plenty of metros in europe are also driverless and the french VAL system as used in Lille and elsewhere has been driveless with no staff onboard the trains since the early 80s. I believe one of more of the Paris metro lines is also driveless.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      When are we going to see driverless buses and trains I wonder.

      Never, as long as the RMT have their way.

      Seeing how they currently have us bent over a barrel with our trousers around our ankles, and have done for the last 20 years - the guy holding down the deadman's switch on a tube train currently earns more than a well paid software developer (plus shorter hours, more holiday, a final salary pension scheme and free household travelcard worth £6k a year).

      I'd change profession, but you have to be someone's nephew to get in on the racket.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > When are we going to see driverless buses and trains I wonder.

      The Metro Vancouver Skytrain has been driverless since 1986.

  9. dan1980
    Unhappy

    Driverless cars are the future. That's almost indisputable. Not to say that drivable cars won't exist (likely with the ability for automatic control), because they almost certainly will, but the point is that a majority of car trips will be undertaken in a car that is largely driving itself.

    There are really only two questions, which are: how far in the future and what will the ownership/rental/hire/pooling/sharing breakdown be.

    I think 25 years is possibly a little too near for the level of disruption being predicted here.

    That said, I think the scenario they are predicting is a sensible one and one not really addressed by several of the commenters, above.

    That scenario is not that people won't own cars but that families that would otherwise own two cars (one for mum and one for dad) will, in a driverless future, own just one car and use some sort of sharing service to replace their second car.

    There are already car sharing services available now - of all different types. There are services like GoGet where cars are purchased by a company that you rent them from. There are also services like CarNextDoor and DriveMyCar, that allow private owners to rent their car when they're not using it. Carpooling is also modernised with services like Carpool One, allowing you to search for an arrange car pooling.

    While all that exists now, it becomes that much more convenient with driverless cars. With GoGet, you have to actually GO to get the car; with driverless cars, they will come to you, just like a taxi.

    People will STILL own their own cars, of course but over all, it is likely that there will be less cars per person because most cars spend most of their time sitting around doing nothing.

    Yes, there will be demand at peak times and if you drive to work, you will probably want your own car. But, if you are single or don't have kids then perhaps you will rent your car out on Saturday mornings* and a family with two kids that need to be at two different boring child sport venues at the same time might hire your car for one of the trips, using their own car for the other.

    Again, this is perfectly possible and happens right now, but the necessity of actually going to get the car is a barrier now. If the car is there when you walk out your front door, that's a hell of a lot more convenient.

    1. phil dude
      Thumb Up

      agree...

      In fact the process of automation is multifaceted. Sure, some NEW cars will be built to be autonomous, but there are several efforts to try and retrofit any reasonably modern car with some form of automation.

      I don't see self-drive cars going away, but I do see highway assist perhaps *only* in rush hour, becoming commonplace.

      I would hope that insurance rates would plummet to reflect this, as this is another industry sorely in need of disruption...

      P.

      1. Roger Greenwood

        Re: agree...

        " insurance rates would plummet "

        No - the prices will go up if you don't comply - that's how it usually works with insurance.

        1. dan1980

          Re: agree...

          Automated cars would record everything so presumably anyone who drove manually would have this known by their insurers, which would lead to some (cheaper) policies specifying that they were only for auto-drive and would not cover in the event of an accident during manual drive (regardless of who is at fault) and then other, significantly more expensive policies for those wishing to drive manually.

          You would also have telemetry information automatically uploaded to the insurers (not to mention the police and traffic authority) which would mean that insurance might end up being pro-rated. It would be advertised as cheaper, and this would likely be true for many people - at least initially, but the real goal would be grabbing the information so that they could determine how best to maximise profits.

          Hell - that part's it's already happening. (As it is with the fitness tracker bracelets some health funds provide.)

    2. JP19

      "Driverless cars are the future. That's almost indisputable"

      How far in the future?

      "Dr. James Baker laid out the description of a speech understanding system called DRAGON in 1975" eventually to become Dragon NaturallySpeaking. Here we are 40 years later and speech recognition is still shite.

      I am pleasantly surprised when OK Google gets it right and understanding a car's environment and driving through it is orders of magnitude more complex than speech recognition and acceptable error rates orders of magnitude lower.

      Personally I don't think we will see fully autonomous vehicles given unrestricted access to the roads in the next 25 years. I don't think Detroit or taxi drivers have much to worry about.

      1. dan1980

        @JP19

        I agree - one of the question is indeed "how far in the future"?

        That said, driverless cars have two big advantages over voice recognition in that, first, driverless technology is of immense interest to the armed forces and second, some of the important technologies involved (such as laser mapping and identification/pathing software are independently useful, not just as a benefit of this research, but also as a field of their own, being developed for other purposes in parallel (and also a military interest).

        Still, I agree that allowing driverless cars the run of the road is quite a way off and I doubt that I will live to see a world where where they are the norm.

  10. Diogenes

    Ownership should work for SWMBO & I

    Imagine a near equilateral triangle with sides @ 12-15k long. One point is home, the other is SWMBOs work, the other mine. When she starts @ oh dark 30 and me at 8 , she could take the car, it returns for me , takes me to work, then waits for her midday finish, collects & runs her home, then comes to collect me @ 3 and brings me home.

  11. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Not for everyone

    A lot of my driving is down single track country lanes with scattered passing places, most of which are 'unofficial' ones. I'd be interested in seeing how a self-driving car is going to cope with that.

    1. AceRimmer

      Re: Not for everyone

      Probably better given that driverless cars will drive at a speed suitable for the road and quite likely be able to sense the presence of another car and negotiate mutually optimal speeds and passing strategies way before a human would be able to.

    2. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Re: Not for everyone

      Most likely by communicating with oncoming traffic, with both cars adjusting their speed so that they meet at one of the passing places. If reversing is necessary at any time, that is something where I think a self-driving car would have the biggest advantage compared to a human driver.

      1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

        Re: Not for everyone

        >> Most likely by communicating with oncoming traffic, with both cars adjusting their speed so that they meet at one of the passing places.

        And when the other car isn't similarly equipped ? Or best of all, the road isn't actually quite wide enough if you take the "machine vision" view of it ?

        >> If reversing is necessary at any time, that is something where I think a self-driving car would have the biggest advantage compared to a human driver.

        I know I won't be the first to have fun when meeting a driverless car on a narrow road. We'll be able to have you reversing for miles, and when you do get going again, you'll meet the next commuter intent on having fun. Oh yes, I predict lots of fun when they do eventually arrive - or not arrive since I could see a simple journey taking a long time :-)

    3. dan1980

      Re: Not for everyone

      @Will Godfrey

      I imagine your situation would call for a driveable car. Indeed I would suspect that it would be a very long time before cars without the ability to take manual control would be allowed so even in a future with driverless cars, you would either be operating yours in manual mode or would simply take over for things like this.

      No comment against you directly (as you raise a valid point) but I am amazed at the number of posters here who have decided to pretend this will be an 'all or nothing' scenario, where all cars will be driverless and no one will own one.

      I imagine that, at the start, there will be areas equipped for these cars, where it will be possible to have them run automatically and illegal, impossible (or both) to do so elsewhere. Then it will be legal - and possible - to do in most or all places, due to either a change in technology or laws (likely both).

      At that point, all cars would likely still be required by law (in most areas) to have manual control and all trips to be undertaken with a correctly licensed driver in the driver's seat. Thus, there would still be cars available that were manual-drive only. Work vehicles like vans and utes as well as recreation vehicles like 4WDs would fall under this category, as would some sports cars and certainly all motorbikes.

      At some further point, automatic-driving technology may become so ubiquitous that it is difficult to find a manual-only option except in the most specialised cases. Even then, it seems probably that all of these would have a manual-drive mode, likely still mandated by law.

      Then, way off in the distance, true driverless cars will be allowed, meaning that you may use a car that has no manual mode at all and thus no licensed driver and therefore your car can go to pickup your kids from school before darting off, by itself, to be waiting to pick you up from work.

      But that future is a very long way off, I suspect.

    4. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Not for everyone

      I drive those same lanes - and given the way that ~60% of drivers seem to think their 4wd is 12 feet wide and can't possibly squeeze past me (or move over to let me past), I suspect the answer is pretty obvious.

      And then there's white van man who will try and force oncoming traffic to reverse uphill around a bend for 100 yards instead of reversing 5 yards into a passing bay, or (worse) try and barge his way past on a road that's only 11 feet wide.

  12. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Stop

    Whoa, whoa, whoa ...

    Part of the American dream is *private* ownership of goods. And they've gone to an awful lot of trouble to ensure what's mine, stays mine.

    Somehow, if they didn't get Obamacare, I can't see them embracing sharing cars - it's waaaaaaaaaaay too socialist.

    1. skeptical i
      Happy

      Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa ...

      Hi, JimmyP: Agree, that is the dream. The reality for many, though, is that the annual cost of vehicle feeding + maintaining + registration + insurance (this last being quite substantial, even for those with clean driving records) is not justified for the relatively small number of trips that REQUIRE use of a car. The arithmetic will vary by person and situation, of course, but in areas where most trips can be done by transit, bicycle, on foot, or by cadging a ride with a friend, on-demand driverless for those outlier cases (schlepping the load of DIY materials, as was pointed out above) could tip more people to selling the car and walking away. This would then free up many of those dollars held hostage to owning/insuring/feeding a car to be spent elsewhere in the local economy. Again, not for everyone (especially in rural areas) but possibly for a good number of people.

      1. Queasy Rider

        Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa ...

        @skeptical i: agreed. Having suffered the car no-car cycle a number of times, I can state without reservation that I was richer without car, had money to spend at the end of the month. With a car it seemed that whenever I felt I was getting ahead financially, my vehicle would eat up that spare cash. Regular scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance such as fuel pumps, water pumps, alternators, radiators, a/c systems, (and I performed almost all the work myself) tires, and finally that onerous insurance bill all conspired to keep me broke. As much as I didn't care for relying totally on public transit, I couldn't deny what it saved me.

    2. AceRimmer

      Re: Whoa, whoa, whoa ...

      The American Dream has moved on from car ownership from all:

      https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=american+car+ownership+decline

      Plenty of studies have shown that among the younger generation in particular, car ownership isn't seen as something to aspire to.

  13. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
    FAIL

    Bollocks...

    ...was my immediate thought just from reading the first line:

    Shared driverless cars will kill off the multi-car household...

    Taxi's haven't. Buses haven't. No form of public transport has for the simple fact it is generally inconvenient, overcrowded, can't accomodate your luggage, isn't available to fit your schedule, and myriad other reasons.

    People have a car precisely because they don't want to share with other people, don't want to wait for a taxi or a bus to arrive, don't want to conform their schedule and priorities to someone / something else's conditions and conveniences.

    Multi-car families extend that rational by having two or more people that need a vehicle at the same time for different purposes with different destinations.

    That is not going to change just because there are driverless cars.

    Never mind that people don't know who has been in the car before them, and if there's no driver there is zero obstruction so some passengers being disgusting assholes and leaving all sorts of nastiness for the next passenger.

    The other point the "analyst" seems to completely overlook is the personal pride and status symbol aspects that are all part of the American Dream of wealth and success. I don't see many Americans giving that up any time soon.

    So.. bollocks.

    1. Oh Bother

      Re: Bollocks...

      Multi-car families extend that rational by having two or more people that need a vehicle at the same time for different purposes with different destinations.

      That is not going to change just because there are driverless cars.

      Why not?

      Driverless cars mean that you can commute to work. Once you're there the car THAT YOU OWN can then head home and pick your kid up and ferry said child to school.

      What will happen in time is that companies/schools/whatever will get a little more flexible with their start and finish times to allow this to happen.

      You may wish to own your own car, probably a long term lease rather than own outright, and that will still be permitted.

      It'll just cost you more than pay per use unless your family usage pattern make the cost worthwhile.

      But imagine if a company like Uber is running all this? Yuk.

      1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

        Re: Bollocks...

        Why not?

        Driverless cars mean that you can commute to work. Once you're there the car THAT YOU OWN can then head home and pick your kid up and ferry said child to school.

        That works until you have to commute to work and the kids have to go to school at the same time.

        You've tried to address this obvious situation though...

        What will happen in time is that companies/schools/whatever will get a little more flexible with their start and finish times to allow this to happen.

        Realistically, they need to anyway, have reception and year one start at 8:45, year 2 and year 3 start and 9:45 and so on, with obviously altered ending times. That would ease a lot of the congestion around schools simply because everyone isn't turning up at the same time. You could probably reduce the offset to 40-45 minutes without overlapping traffic patterns too much. Work times would have to alter to allow for the legal requirement of your kids being in school. Again this would not be a bad thing as we'd avoid the morning and afternoon peaks, spreading them out across the day so on average there's less traffic at any given time.

        1. Queasy Rider

          Re: Bollocks...

          As to the school thing, that all depends. The tiny street (one and a half lanes max) that I live on also has a primary school on it. For two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon it is restricted to one way. You can drive around the block so that's not a terrible inconvenience till the buses show up and then nothing can pass for over a quarter hour. Since that quarter hour falls at the same time every day, it remains a minor inconvenience, but, if every grade was staggered, I would go out of my mind trying to work around that seemingly never ending aggravation. And just to put the boot in, my street feeds onto a main highway which has two more school restricted zones one half and one mile away. And yes, the other schools have staggered hours (for the buses convenience) so there is no way around it. Kids, schools, who needs 'em? (Sorry, just kidding)

          1. Queasy Rider

            Re: Bollocks...

            P.S. I forgot to point out how many more buses and drivers would be required if you divide up the school population by grade. If you had three kids in primary school, not an unusual situation, then you can expect two more buses a day just for your kids, and there will be more buses for middle and secondary school too. No school board would be willing to pay for all those extra buses, and I doubt any neighborhood would want them either.

  14. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    @JimmyPage - sorry for plagarising

    We had the same thought about the American Dream angle at the same time and now it appears that I have blatantly copied you. Pure coincidence I assure you. Funny how these things happen.

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: @Jimmy2Cows

      no problem. In fact it's an illustration of what is called "the bleedin' obvious".

      So bleeding obvious that people being paid to see it, can't see it.

  15. Andy Mc

    oh, I hope this comes true....

    60% fewer cars on the road? I sense some blissful driving opportunities on empty roads coming up :) <bounce>

  16. chrisf1

    Greater efficiency means MORE cars not less - at least globally

    Whilst I might buy that in a near saturated market like the US cars sales could fall, globally the market is probably nowhere near saturated. As such the increase in capital efficiency allowed means the overall efficiency of cars could well increase and therefore use and demand will increase.

    You'll note that we all use more ICT rather than less despite the massive increase in efficiencies over the years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

    Can we have a debate between Messrs Chirgwin and Worstall?

  17. Oh Bother
    Unhappy

    Road tax?

    What happens to road tax when fleets of driverless vehicles abound that you can own, lease, or per per use?

    Will we then get per/Km charging for road use instead?

    person a - 100Km commute, off peak £5

    person b - 20Km shopping, off peak £1

    child q - 20Km school run, school £0.50

    person p - 5Km unknown, peak £5

    1. nijam Silver badge

      Re: Road tax?

      Don't be silly! The Road Fund Licence (which the government have repeatedly tried renaming, to support their pretence that it was not introduced just to fund roads) will stay with us. Your per km/mile charging will be added on top of that, to cover the loss of the exorbitant excise duty on road vehicle fuel, VAT on road vehicle fuel, and (of course) VAT on the excise duty on road vehicle fuel. So your figures are probably about 10% of what the real charges will be.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Road tax?

        As I understand it they didn't just try to rename it, a long while ago they passed legislation which amounts to accountant's sleight of hand, to claim it was no longer to fund the road, and that they can use drivers as cash cows and nick the money collected to spend elsewhere. Of course the general population knew that was bogus and kept/used the correct name ever since (save for a few youngsters who don't realise what the government pulled in the past and think that it's ok for us to be treated like that).

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Road tax?

          The "road tax" only pulls in about £5 billion per year.

          Maintaining roads costs about £15 billion.

          Everyone shouts "Driver subsidisation!" - and ignore the point that road fuel taxes pull in about £45 billion.

      2. strum

        Re: Road tax?

        >The Road Fund Licence

        This hasn't existed since the 1930s. It's only daft cars-before-people ranters who still call it that.

  18. Roger Greenwood
    Happy

    But . . .but . . .

    . . what about all the junk I have in the boot that goes everywhere with me?

    1. dan1980

      Re: But . . .but . . .

      @Roger

      That junk in your boot? It will stay in your boot. If you're the kind of person who is very attached to their car or uses it to ferry stuff about frequently then you'll likely still own a car in this proposed future.

      No one (sensible) is suggesting that driverless cars will make car ownership a thing of the past, just that some families that own multiple cars may, in that future scenario, own less cars.

      I know someone who (with his wife) owns three cars. Perhaps in this future they will only own two cars.

      I doubt very much that car sales will drop quite so much as they are saying - at least in that time frame but the concept is quite sound.

      1. dan1980

        Re: But . . .but . . .

        Imagine two young couples.

        The first both drive to work and so each need their own car during the week; the second both take public transport to work during the week; both couples need a car on the weekend to do the shopping or visit family and friends but 95% of the time, the couple goes together.

        Between those four people, they only need two cars - two for one couple during the week and then one each on the weekends. Separately, they would need three cars.

        As I said previously, car sharing arrangements exist to cover those situations now but driverless cars just make it more convenient.

        My partner and I are the second couple in that scenario - we nearly never need a car during the week but have one for use on the weekends. We could use a service like 'GoGet' but don't because having our own car is just more convenient and there is always the risk that a car won't be available nearby at short notice - a problem seeing as you have to walk to the car!

        With driverless cars and people willing to share them for money, there are potentially hundreds of cars that can be at our door in 15 minutes and thousands that could be there with half an hour's notice.

        And a service like 'GoGet' doesn't have to rely on isolated vehicles parked in individual spots around the place - they can have larger fleets in dedicated areas that wouldn't be convenient to walk to, but from where cars can be dispatched to customers easily. And, as they are driverless, they can be stored in a smaller area without inconvenience as a driver doesn't have to get in and out.

        That allows not only for more cars to be available for hire but also for shorter notice hiring as you aren't restricted to just those cars within walking distance - which equals more people using the service.

        You also don't have to return it, which is not only more convenient but also cheaper as you can go somewhere and then the car goes off for other people to use and when you want to leave, you get another one. Or have it there waiting for you if you want - it'd be your choice. Also good for one-way trips like to or from the airport.

        If we knew we could have a car to us in 15-30 minutes on the weekend then that might very well enable us to ditch our car.

  19. Kubla Cant

    Detroit

    a Barclays analyst reckons that points to a calamitous future for Detroit

    I've never been there, but from what I read of Detroit it already has a calamitous present.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I can't see massive numbers of folk willing to give up their personal transport with all their personal things stowed in it. So one can whistle up a driverless taxi to get from A to B. They can phone for a taxi or get the bus right now, but personal transport is still valued.

  21. Arachnoid

    Missing destination ?.........

    I see lots of comments about going to work,school etc of predetermined destinations but none about actually going out for a drive just for the enjoyment of it all.Say I want to go out there...... Oh for a drive to some random place in the country enjoying the view then decide to go to the beach for a few hours and maybe stop off on the way back at a nice restaurant or visit a friend I haven't seen in years.how the hell does that fit in with a self drive shared vehicles agenda?

    1. AceRimmer

      Re: Missing destination ?.........

      I'm sure you'll be able to book by either route or time

      1. Arachnoid

        Re: Missing destination ?.........

        So what happens to all the local transport availability when the vehicles are mostly out of town?

    2. strum

      Re: Missing destination ?.........

      >how the hell does that fit in with a self drive shared vehicles agenda?

      Probably a hell of a lot better than a wife/girlfriend who was expecting to go to the shops.

    3. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Re: Missing destination ?.........

      It works just like it works now. Driving more miles is more expensive than driving fewer miles. For proper sharing, you will likely have an iPhone app where you enter when you want to use your car again. So while you are lying on the beach for hours, the car drives a dozen other people to and from the beach.

      Worst case, if you manage to hold on to the car 24/7, it will cost as much as leasing a car today. But most people will save money.

    4. dan1980

      Re: Missing destination ?.........

      @Arachnoid

      How does that work?

      You'd own your own car, of course! No one is suggesting that private car ownership will somehow vanish, just that some of the people who currently own cars won't, in a driverless future, need to.

      This is already the case now, with services that allow you to use cars that are parked about the place, and one of my colleagues sold his car because he lives close to the city and only needs a car occasionally.

      The point is that driverless cars are more convenient for this so more people will use these services than do now and so more people will ditch their own car or - as the report says - more families will own one car rather than two.

      That's all.

      Still, the numbers are rather too high for me but the concept is solid: more convenient car sharing = more people using it = less people owning cars.

  22. Kubla Cant

    Where's my flying car?

    I can't help wondering if the driverless car is going to be as endlessly deferred as the flying car. In both cases there are working prototypes and announcements that a production roll-out is just around the corner, but....

    I'm just thinking of the level of ingenuity required to be a car commuter in Central London - knowledge of rat-runs and back doubles, judgement about which route is appropriate for the time of day and traffic conditions, knowing that this side road is the one to use when joining a main road because there's an upstream pedestrian crossing that causes breaks in the traffic and so on.

    It's been a while since I lived in London, so last time I visited I used the satnav. I think it routed me through every major traffic hotspot it could find, and I arrived an hour late. At this rate, driverless cars will spend most of their lives stationary in traffic jams.

    Navigation is the easy part of the driverless car requirement, but even that seems to need more work.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As usual...

    ...the clueless with their crystal ball are out of touch with reality.

    Here's a clue for them: Not everyone wants to be chauffeured about. Many people actually enjoy driving their auto. In addition AVs will not be cheap and probably not very reliable for at least 20 years or more. They already make buses and trains for the clueless. AVs are just a means of personal transportation for those incapable of proper driving.

  24. Mark 85

    Detroit = Ford/GM but not Chrysler?

    Maybe it is equal to those. The article says that two of these will be either gone or in big trouble by then. Do they know for certain that none of them are working on driverless cars? Historically, in the States, the Big 3 have been very secretive about future vehicles.. even ones come out in the next model year. GM, in the past has done a lot of work on electrics "in the quiet" but failed to bring it to market.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one of these hitting the market possibly before Google. Actually I would be surprised if they failed to hit the market at all.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fewer more expensive cars

    They will have to be built to a higher standard to be able to "pile on the miles" as the author says. Apple seems to do pretty well selling fewer more expensive phones. So it is certainly possible for Detroit to have a bright future when driverless cars are the norm...whether it goes that way for them is another matter, of course.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Here in Canada

    we will have many decades to laugh at the Californians mishaps with robo-cars before those electric self-driving cars will come on our roads, and only if they will ever dare to face our winter conditions.

    Google coders, have a look at this:

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal#/media/File:Montreal_-_Plateau,_day_of_snow_-_200312.jpg

    I can drive and park my car in these conditions, snow storm included. Can your algorithm do it ? Can you also program a snowplough to deal with it ?

  27. Windi

    Driverless Cars ... Death to Detroit

    I seriously doubt it. While some might like a driverless car, Americans are big on "control." I would not trust a driverless car's keeping me safe in metropolitan driving, like Atlanta (Georgia) rush hour. At a minimum of 30 miles per day round trip to work, the daily rate would be more than $13 for a single-passenger car, yet just under $2.50 per day for a double-passenger car. Unless the riders are acquainted, I can't imagine Americans choosing to ride daily with strangers in the small space of the driverless car.

    Perhaps the younger generations might like using driverless cars, but I seriously doubt the average American would give up his/her independence.

    1. Robert Grant

      Re: Driverless Cars ... Death to Detroit

      I agree that Americans (incorrectly) link car ownership to independence, but that could easily change if the thing works better and doesn't take away any conveniences, and adds others (e.g. you'll be independent from having to repair or insure the thing).

      E.g. what if there was a self-driving car lane, like a car pool lane? All the cars drive along 10cm from each other at full tilt, getting you home much faster. Adolescent fantasies about independence might vanish then.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I will wait for...

    ... driver less motorcycles.... now that will be fun :)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like