|
More than half the assertions in that article are predicated on the false premise that self-driving cars would be owned by the riders for personal use, rather than commissioned per-ride from a fleet (the way ride-"sharing" services like Uber and Lyft work today). Once you take that part out of the equation, the arguments, one by one, become a lot weaker, if not collapsing entirely: - Electric cars being impractical: when you're managing an automated fleet, taking them off the grid to be fueled electrically is actually more practical, since it's easier to deploy recharging nodes without manual intervention than it is to transfer liquid. Also, longer on-base recharging times (which aren't necessarily a given) can be combined with any routine maintenance which may need to be done (including scanning the cabin for lost items / cleaning it). - Ownership costs: this one falls apart almost completely. There is the looming problem that this would give massive corporations even more leverage than they already have, but the solutions there are political in nature, calling for an approach similar to the existing approach to state-run mass transit (akin to how Seattle runs the Pronto bike service). - No big increase in productivity: "One of the many benefits is smaller than claimed" is hardly an argument against autonomous vehicles - not to mention that that study only looks at the immediate behaviors of current self-driving-car passengers. It's quite likely that, after even just a few months of self-driving fleets being normalized, we'd see workflows start to adapt, with more voice-driven productivity adopted (to avoid motion sickness), possibly combined with translucent displays in the vehicles themselves. - People like driving themselves: I'm not sure I buy this as a real obstacle for the majority of the population. People liked feeding horses, chatting with travel agents, and browsing bookstores, too- it wasn't enough to keep most people from abandoning them once a significantly more convenient alternative came along. (And if you're only making the decision per-ride, instead of for an up-front bulk purchase like a self-driven car, this decision becomes a lot easier.) |
And the article fails to mention a key benefit of self-drivers: removal of human error, and lowering of accident rates because of it. This is still theoretical, but it almost certain to become reality. Imagine saving 33% of the lives lost annually in car crashes. That's 10,000 people.
Another key benefit not mentioned is the enablement of non-empowered people. Sight-impaired people, young people, older people, people who are unwell or otherwise physically limited - all of these people can benefit from door-to-door service offered by self-driving cars, and not offered by buses. Yes, today there are "Access" vans, but cmon. Those are not a viable large-scale solution. Self-drivers will set many people free.
Self-driving cars are going to happen, because they're convenient and offer privacy and utility that a bus or train cannot. Some people will be willing to pay extra for that. Some won't. As the author of the article said: We need the mix.