How hopeful are you that the future will be much better?

[icowden]

In sizable cities summoning a car, self driving or taxi, is and will be quite quick.
In rural areas and smaller towns, forget it. If you live 20 miles from a big city and want to go shopping, the bus will be faster than summoning a ride. Faster yet will be to continue to own car.

Which is why I said that the *majority* of people will no longer want to own a car - not all.
You are very optimistic about the frequency of busses 20 miles from a city. My mum lives 7 miles from the centre of Worcester where there are 3 busses per day. It's about a 15-20 minute drive.

So that's a win for an autonomous car...

 

[icowden]

In terms of car maintenance things are going to be a lot more expensive in the future.

But on the positive side, EVs need a lot less maintenance, so things will be *less* expensive being pretty much limited to tyres, brake pads (very occasionally) and filters.

 

[Archie_tect]

Autonomous taxis/ minibuses will replace timetabled service buses so that everyone has access- bit like hospital pick-ups now but loads more of them everywhere- using apps like Just Three Words to order, find and pick up with pay per mile charging on arrival. We won't need cars- lots more e-bikes, cargo e-bikes and e-trikes though for shop delivery and personal local transport... imagine everyone on mobility scooters!

 

[HMS_Dave]

But on the positive side, EVs need a lot less maintenance, so things will be *less* expensive being pretty much limited to tyres, brake pads (very occasionally) and filters.

It absolutely should be. But big businesses love to throw a monopoly on their products and there is only one reason for that... I can see many a high profile court case in the future regarding this.

 

[keithmac]

Yep:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50484172

A driverless car was being tested, the safety operator was streaming a movie and the pedestrian was crossing in an unsafe area. Lots of fault all round.
Your point is?

The car didn't see the pedestrian was my point, it's not infallible. What happens next time.

Given all the fancy technology they'll still run people over.

 

[icowden]

The car didn't see the pedestrian was my point, it's not infallible. What happens next time.

I understand that the early tests of Aeroplanes were problematic. The car was supposed to be being supervised. It was still learning.
What happens is that the AI (and the company) learns from the mistake and doesn't repeat it.

In other news, human drivers killed 42,060 people in the USA alone in 2020. So the AI is winning that one, by some margin.

 

[keithmac]

I understand that the early tests of Aeroplanes were problematic. The car was supposed to be being supervised. It was still learning.
What happens is that the AI (and the company) learns from the mistake and doesn't repeat it.

In other news, human drivers killed 42,060 people in the USA alone in 2020. So the AI is winning that one, by some margin.

Apples and oranges there. How many self driven AI cars in the USA vs human.

I bet the lady that got run over is glad they've learnt from their mistake as you say, no doubt she's over the moon..

 

[keithmac]

There's been a discussion about fully driverless cars, I remembered the incident and posted a link incase people haven't heard about it.

Some have got very defensive about the fatal accident.

I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near a fully autonomous car but each to their own.

 

[icowden]

I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near a fully autonomous car but each to their own.

I believe it took quite a while before most people would go near those new fangled aircraft.
Originally people thought that if women were to travel on a train their uterus would fly out.

New technology is always scary. Then it's commonplace.

 

[keithmac]

I suppose it's like Chernobyl, they'll get it right eventually.

 

[cyberknight]

Whats a cycle lane ?

 

[mustang1]

Economies rely on growth. Cycling infrastructure, bikes, cyclists, just do not bring in the money that cars do. Road tax, petrol tax, wear and tear on roads, car servicing. All cyclists want to do is get the cheapest servicing, only ride when the weather is good, and mainly for recreation; that ain't gonna bring any money in, nothing on the scale that car/road infrastructure does.

You may say (something like) "yeah but with cyclists going slowly through towns, there has been rejuvenation. Yeah, maybe a tiny bit.

If cyclists get taxed, registered, require mandatory insurance, have MOT stations for bikes, things like that, even then it wont bring the kind of money cars can generate. Body shops, paintshops, customising, more powerful engines or motors, so many more parts that wear out.

Whatever wears out on a bike? The brake pads (£10), the chain and cassette (£50).

Having said that, bikes are getting more expensive and probably PCP schemes will be introduced: a 3 year deal including maintenance contract, mandatory insurance, GAP insurance, "free MOT" and low interest finance might get things moving though.

 

[Drago]

It wouldn't bring in any money, because most would then simply not cycle and the few that do would take their chances.

 

[matticus]

Economies rely on growth. Cycling infrastructure, bikes, cyclists, just do not bring in the money that cars do.

And yet many other euro economies have decided having less cars and more cyclists is worth the small sacrifice to their economies. (Belgium and Denmark are hardly 3rd world countries.)

When we visit these places we mostly rave about how nice they are; and then come home and rant about new cycle lanes in our town.

 

[TheDoctor]

Humph. My local council is planning to remove some newly-installed cycle racks and put car parking back there instead. Bike parking for 24 bikes, to be replaced by parking for three cars. This in a town designed with a pretty good cycle network, although it's criminally poorly maintained these days.