mr_bill

Your knowledge of physics is lacking.

-mr. bill

KD5NRH

Physics is less meaningful when it disregards reality; 90+% of the things buses hit or are hit by are vastly smaller than the bus itself, and result in less disruption to the bus than a car gets from running over a bicycle. It's telling that they're not even considering requiring seat belts on public transit buses.

Rollfast

Aren't the seats high backed?

Rollfast

Gee willikers, peeps, I haven't even owned a NORMAL car in 11 years. Why don't some of you start a site of your own and then you can do what you want. I miss going to see my dead and dying relations on my own but at least my mom has a car with heated seats...

KD5NRH

Huh? Last I checked, this is "bikeforums.net," not "whygiveupthetit.com." Does mommy still pick your clothes too?

Rollfast

I-Like-To-Bike

No, the question is, and has been, and remains unanswered by you:

Where-oh-where do you dig up your estimated fabulously low costs for "AV rides"?

genec

I suspect you are quite right on this aspect... no doubt the company would charge nearly the same rate, and pocket the difference in costs.

Ninety5rpm

Except for all the competition that will undercut it... because they will be able to afford it and still make a profit. Competition will drive the prices down to cost + reasonable profit, which will be much lower than cost + reasonable profit for a human driven hailed car.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are assuming as does ninety5rpm that the cost of owning/operating/maintaining a self driving car (rental or privately owned) will be cheaper than conventional (rental or privately owned) motor vehicles. I assume the low-ball cost estimates for the operation of true AV vehicles posted on this list are dreamy guesstimates based on reports gleaned from sales pitches made to potential investors, PR puffery from industry flacks, and the blogs of techno junkies.

genec

I assume only that not paying humans by the hour to do something a robot does, will save money... this premise has been proven many times over in industry... the only variable is the economy of scale it takes to make it work.

I also doubt that any cost savings will be passed on to the end customer. This too is a general trend in industry.

Ninety5rpm

I make no such assumption. The main ownership cost to be saved is likely insurance, but maintaining the high tech equipment will be an additional cost. However, Teslas already have much of that equipment. There may be less wear and tear to tires and shocks by AVs as well.

But all these vehicle maintenance cost differences are marginal compared to the labor cost of a human driver that will be saved by an AV.

Let's look at some Uber/Lyft rides I've taken.

14 miles, 23 minutes, $25
14 miles, 24 minutes $28
6 miles, 25 minutes, $18
16 miles, 34 minutes $32
13 miles, 21 minutes $24

Wow. The minutes and dollars both average to 25.4.
So figure the fare cost is about $1/minute.

Uber takes a 20% cut, or $4 from a $20 fare, so the remaining amount of the fare, $16 for a typical $20 fare for a 20 minute drive, is for driver labor and vehicle costs.

For an apples to apples comparison, say the Uber driver will still own the AV and be responsible for the vehicle maintenance. But here's the key. Now he can own 3, 4, 5, 100, or 1000 cars. And they will all be making money for him in parallel because he won't actually have to be driving one. That's where all the money is made.

genec

And if Uber owns the cars... they can and will take the whole thing... they are not likely to cut prices.

Rarely does company lower prices when they use technology to "improve" a process... so don't expect the fare cost to go down.

Ninety5rpm

Are you kidding? The prices are already extremely competitive. They're undercutting the taxis, not to mention each other. As ILTB likes to remind us, they're not even charging enough to make a profit.

Why wouldn't competition drive prices down to cost + reasonable profit in this market even though it does in every other market?

And this is a particularly price sensitive market. No one is going to be paying (much) more to go with the Gucci service...

genec

You answered your own question... eventually they have to profit to keep the company alive... they can only use loss leaders for so long, to undercut the competition.

Ninety5rpm

They only have to operate at a loss, to undercut, if the competition is operating at marginal or zero profit, which is the current situation. And they can only justifying operating in the red like that if they can see black light at the end of the tunnel (and can make it to the end of the tunnel in the red). The black light is about having market share when self-driving arrives en masse.

Once nobody has to pay for a human drivers anymore, the profits will, initially, be much higher, so undercutting the competition will no longer require operating at a loss. So they'll keep undercutting each other again, but there won't be any justification to operate at a loss, so the basement will be reasonable profit (and those who figure out operational efficiency the best will be rewarded the most). But fares for AV rides that bring a reasonable profit will still be much lower than fares for human driven rides that bring no profit, which is my main point.

genec

Why... when charging the same as for human drivers just puts more money into the profit side for the company?

Ever notice that banks charge for the use of ATMs? Just go to the teller, it's free.

Ninety5rpm

Because as long as one company is making a significant profit, someone else is going to undercut them to get that business. Come on, man. Econ 101.

A nominal fee to pay for the maintenance and convenience. That ones that used to gouge are few and far between, getting only the most gullible. There might be a gouging "Gucci" service too, but the bulk of the business will be had by those that operate at competitive prices, earning only a reasonable profit.

jefnvk

As one who works for an auto supplier who deals with the big three and numerous others, this is laughably wrong.

I wish I didn't have a NDA, just to elaborate how wrong you were.

Ninety5rpm

Indeed.

www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-autonomous/gm-plans-large-scale-launch-of-self-driving-cars-in-u-s-cities-in-2019-idUSKBN1DU2H0

FORD TARGETS FULLY AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE FOR RIDE SHARING IN 2021; INVESTS IN NEW TECH COMPANIES, DOUBLES SILICON VALLEY TEAM

www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/business/fiat-bmw-cars-driverless.html

I-Like-To-Bike

Indeed, as if press releases from investor relations and similar corporate PR flacks, as well as pep talks/sales pitches to investors and techno fan boys were unbiased and accurate/reliable predictors of the future.

Rollfast

I still wonder what this has to do with cyclists, other than will they hit you.

genec

Uh, I think the whole point is that you are less likely to be hit by a robot that doesn't get distracted, nor frustrated by trying to fully comply with the rules of the road, as you might be, by a distracted, frustrated, rule breaking human driver.

I-Like-To-Bike

That "point"is a speculative dish spooned out in the promoters' press releases and techno gossip columns that makes the fan-boies drool and repost on this thread as if this "point" was a given, not just a sought after goal.

Ninety5rpm

Here's an AV concept just unveiled at CES that Toyota will try to have ready for the 2020 Olympics. I think the ride sharing part makes sense (not the bike being carried into it). Not sure about mobile stores and mobile hotels. What electric vehicle could drive nonstop all night as you sleep? Or does it pick you up at the airport, take you to some parking area for night, then deliver you to your meeting destination in the morning and pick you up later that day? That doesn't seem efficient, but then hotel rooms sit unused all day too.

https://tinyurl.com/epalette