> I had this discussion with my friend. Would automated fleets of cars make sense?
The "automated fleet" idea is not how people are planning to see this idea play out. Automated, self-driving cars are one thing, but an automated fleet makes it sound like a train rather than many vehicles operating very efficiently (meaning without human drivers) but each with a separate destination.
To an alien watching from orbit, a country of automated cars would appear different from the present only in that the cars would be much closer together than they are now, with no increased danger of collision -- indeed, less danger. Cars would still leave the freeway and go to their intended destination just as they do now, just more efficiently.
> it wouldn’t make economic sense to use a self-driving car service to get to and from work.
It would if everyone still owned a car as they do now, the only difference being that the car drives itself. If the idea of a "fleet" were taken seriously, why not switch to trains or buses instead of cars? The only reason to have a car is to be able to go directly to your destination.
> an automated fleet makes it sound like a train rather than many vehicles...each with a separate destination
When I hear the word "fleet" it usually just means a number of vehicles bought by one company: A car rental company has a fleet of cars. A trucking company has a fleet of trucks. A car dealer has a fleet manager. (Forgive me for pointing this out, I'm sure you know it already, just trying to clarify the terminology.)
Enterprise Rent-a-Car will already send any of the cars in their fleet to your door. Of course they send a human along to drive the car to you.
If they got an automated fleet they could offer the same service they do now, but they would just send the car over by itself.
At least that's what "automated fleet" sounds like to me. :-)
I am assuming that services which rented out automated cars would have large numbers of them. I’m referring to them as a fleet in the same way logistics companies refer to a fleet of trucks even if there not all driving the same rout.
If only ¼ of car owners are on the road at peak traffic times then it could make sense to have automated car rental for a specific trip instead of car ownership. Assume drives to work take 30 minutes and that most people go to work from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Also assume that we have inefficient routs requiring the car to drive the same distance for all pickups and drop-offs. Between 5:30 AM and 8:30 AM you could get three people to work with one automated car. Assuming this would it be cost efficient for companies to charge a low enough trip cost to make it more economical for people with fairly predictable driving requirements to rent a car as needed instead of buying one.
I'm using "fleet" in the same way as you, jareds. A single company owns a large number of vehicles rather than a large group of individuals each owning one vehicle.
We wouldn't need to dedicate such a high level of inefficient resources to parking vehicles that sit mostly unused and it could offer us the opportunity to remake our cities to be more pedestrian and bike friendly.
Those are hardly the only reasons. I want a vehicle that has my stuff in it: My kids' car seats, my cell phone charger, my wife's umbrella, our radio presets, etc. If a random car pulls up at my house and I have to put 3 armloads of stuff in it every time I get in, that's a big deal. I frequently put stuff in my car for a second destination; sports equipment, a change of clothes, re-usable shopping bags, library books, etc. That's impossible if I'm in someone else's car. I want a vehicle that's comfortable and that I'm familiar with; I sit in it for 2 hours a day, and I don't want to worry if I'm going to end up with gum on my pants from the previous occupants.
My car isn't just a train or a bus that goes directly to where I want it to; that's called a taxi. My car is a small extension of my house.
I recently consumed a piece that argued that auto manufacturers have been supremely successful in linking our personal cars to our egos. "You are what you drive." It really hit home for me and appealed to the part of me that finds little appealing in attachment to physical things.
However I will say that your issues are pretty easily solved, imo. The car service simply customizes your ride experience with your radio choices. Car seats are necessary because of imperfect human drivers and (?) not necessary when robots are driving.
Removable/secure trunks could be stored at some site until needed, retrieved from cars and stored by robots since lifting and carrying are simple tasks for robots. When you request the next leg of your service, the first stop is the storage center where your secure trunk was stored.
I already mentioned about the maintenance facilities Musk is working on. Cheap and effective sensors detect gum/soilage, modern fabrics repel dirt and detritus and are cleaned to tolerable levels. Or another car comes instead. And your 2 hours in a car drops precipitously as smart-queuing greatly improves travel times.
This reminds me a lot of the book by Bruno Latour: "Aramis, or The Love of Technology", which was about a French government-sponsored light rail project called "Aramis" (Really a revolutionary public transport concept), where each car would route itself to it's destination independently, coupled to the cars in front and behind electronically, rather than physically. Of course, continual political interference scuppered the whole thing before they could get it to work (a challenge with the technology of the day), and the whole thing drifted on and on for decades without really taking off. Now, of course, the whole thing would be much easier, and the technology behind self-driving cars might actually make it a reality.
The "automated fleet" idea is not how people are planning to see this idea play out. Automated, self-driving cars are one thing, but an automated fleet makes it sound like a train rather than many vehicles operating very efficiently (meaning without human drivers) but each with a separate destination.
To an alien watching from orbit, a country of automated cars would appear different from the present only in that the cars would be much closer together than they are now, with no increased danger of collision -- indeed, less danger. Cars would still leave the freeway and go to their intended destination just as they do now, just more efficiently.
> it wouldn’t make economic sense to use a self-driving car service to get to and from work.
It would if everyone still owned a car as they do now, the only difference being that the car drives itself. If the idea of a "fleet" were taken seriously, why not switch to trains or buses instead of cars? The only reason to have a car is to be able to go directly to your destination.