Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-07-2017, 11:59 AM   #101
accord1999
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashpoint View Post
In LA you just pick UberX rather than Rideshare. I never share my Uber.
And it's typically more expensive than driving yourself. And even if during the ride you're not "sharing", you're still riding in a car that thousands of other people and their messes, spills and bodily fluids have gone through.

Last edited by accord1999; 05-07-2017 at 12:02 PM.
accord1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 12:09 PM   #102
Flash Walken
Lifetime Suspension
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Void between Darkness and Light
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood View Post
Who is this directed at?
You, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flamefan74 View Post
It's not an exhaustive Stanford study. It's his private consulting firm who did the study. Of which his partner is an investor in tech companies. He just happens to teach some online courses at Stanford Continuing Education Studies. Hell, just look at some his sources for the report. His own book that he wrote a couple years ago. I think I'll stick with the drywall guy on this one. Like EE said, clickbait.
Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed it was an extension of this study from Stanford: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty...mpeding-forces
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 12:27 PM   #103
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
And it's typically more expensive than driving yourself. And even if during the ride you're not "sharing", you're still riding in a car that thousands of other people and their messes, spills and bodily fluids have gone through.
I guess this is kind of the rub.

I don't want an autonomous car that is essentially a cab to be used and abused by anyone. It would be cool (and really cheap) to share a car with (for example) four other people who live in my building. Just having a random vehicle show up is not something I'm interested in either.

Technically, we could share a car right now, but the problem is that if you take the car to work, it's gone. It stays there all day. That's why we all have our own cars now. If I can get it to drive me to work and go home and be accessible to the other people that own it, well that's just super.

Thousands of dirty generic little cars whirring around doesn't appeal to me either.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 01:37 PM   #104
calgaryblood
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
You, I guess.


Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed it was an extension of this study from Stanford: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty...mpeding-forces
Post the study, that's not it.
calgaryblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 01:42 PM   #105
WhiteTiger
Franchise Player
 
WhiteTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

I wonder about those of us who aren't interested in autonomous vehicles. I like cars, and I like driving. I don't even tend to use cruise control. I guess there can't be that many folks who actually like driving, but...I don't think I'd really like autonomous vehicles much at all. I want to drive. I don't want to be driven.
WhiteTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 01:47 PM   #106
edslunch
Franchise Player
 
edslunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default EV's and Transportation as a Service to kill Alberta economy by 2030?

Car sharing would be a pain in the butt for a family. The amount of gear/crap that stays in the car starting with car seats is a barrier. And don't get me started about how messy the car is after a moderate trip with kids. Now throw dogs into the picture and the car becomes unshareable without a full clean in between.

I think there is a reasonable segment of the population that could satisfy most of their needs without owning a car, but there is a large segment that can't or won't. I could use nothing but car to go and Uber today if I wanted to but I can afford a car or two and that's what I choose. I don't think that changes unless the cost of owning one gets inflated significantly (naturally or artificially). Reducing the cost of the alternative will have little to no affect on my buying habits.

Also, the ride sharing services are going to need to compete with beaters and cheap used cars as that is the segment that is most price sensitive. The alternative is not always a $30000 vehicle with regular maintenance.
edslunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:15 PM   #107
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

These forecasts are a sort of dystopian future where the majority of people will be jobless. Auto manufacturing will decline and be fully automated, driving careers will disappear, agriculture, resource development will be automated. What fields will underpin the economy of the future? How long until tech jobs are taken by AI? I don't like the direction we're going, it will be highly destructive to our society. If 90% of people are directionless wards of the state how don't we descend into violence?

The change of our energy sources and infrastructure is inevitable, but AI everything isn't a positive future for the majority of society.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:18 PM   #108
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city View Post
These forecasts are a sort of dystopian future where the majority of people will be jobless. Auto manufacturing will decline and be fully automated, driving careers will disappear, agriculture, resource development will be automated. What fields will underpin the economy of the future? How long until tech jobs are taken by AI? I don't like the direction we're going, it will be highly destructive to our society. If 90% of people are directionless wards of the state how don't we descend into violence?

The change of our energy sources and infrastructure is inevitable, but AI everything isn't a positive future for the majority of society.
Exactly. Unfortunately, the middle class will have to start to get thinned out by automation before we'll be smart enough to see where we're going, which will of course be too late to change direction.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 02:20 PM   #109
Fozzie_DeBear
Wucka Wocka Wacka
 
Fozzie_DeBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: East of the Rockies, West of the Rest
Exp:
Default

My question remains what does this mean for Alberta? This matters a great deal because Provincial government policies will have a huge impact upon how Alberta will weather this upcoming disruption (whenever it happens). Lougheed had the right approach (investing in the Heritage fund and innovation). I hope Albertans take a look at the Wildrose, PC and NDP's long term economic development assumptions when they cast their vote in 2019.

In my mind, cutting taxes, shrinking government and focusing upon oil and gas is not good enough.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan

"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Fozzie_DeBear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 02:25 PM   #110
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger View Post
I wonder about those of us who aren't interested in autonomous vehicles. I like cars, and I like driving. I don't even tend to use cruise control. I guess there can't be that many folks who actually like driving, but...I don't think I'd really like autonomous vehicles much at all. I want to drive. I don't want to be driven.
At some point the difference in safety between the user error of manually driven cars and the software error of automated vehicles will be such a huge gap that manually driven cars will just be outlawed. Think about the sheer number of people who die in traffic accidents, if auto-driving cars can reduce that by 90% (which isn't unrealistic) then you'd be worse than a drunk driver for selfishly insisting on driving yourself just because you enjoy it. Driving for fun will be relegated to tracks.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:27 PM   #111
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
At some point the difference in safety between the user error of manually driven cars and the software error of automated vehicles will be such a huge gap that manually driven cars will just be outlawed. Think about the sheer number of people who die in traffic accidents, if auto-driving cars can reduce that by 90% (which isn't unrealistic) then you'd be worse than a drunk driver for selfishly insisting on driving yourself just because you enjoy it. Driving for fun will be relegated to tracks.
I suspect in 100 years people will speak about how we used to manually drive cars and police would regularly close down roads for hours as they cleaned up bodies and investigated accidents and youth will cringe trying to understand how that was ever a thing as a line of automated vehicles drive along in perfect unison like an amusement park ride.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:28 PM   #112
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger View Post
I wonder about those of us who aren't interested in autonomous vehicles. I like cars, and I like driving. I don't even tend to use cruise control. I guess there can't be that many folks who actually like driving, but...I don't think I'd really like autonomous vehicles much at all. I want to drive. I don't want to be driven.
I love to drive as well. I want a car. (anecdotal I know, just replying to WhiteTiger's post)

Also, as has been mentioned, vehicles are status symbols. Who hates status symbols? People with less status than they think they deserve (including many young people). Who likes status symbols? People with status. Expecting them to give their status up is wishful thinking IMO.

I know young people look at this as inevitable change. "Our new world will be a better place if we all get along and share vehicles". You know what other group felt the same way once? Boomers.

When boomers were young (and less affluent), they dreamt of communes, less personal possessions, and sharing the world. But a funny thing happened on the way to the commune. Reality. People like convenience. Making life better for yourself and your family is what has been driving civilization since day 1.

That basic human need isn't changing anytime soon. Sure, some peoples' lifestyles can easily support the changes implied here. And more and more will, going forward But for most people, personal convenience and choice is always preferred.

Imagine having small children and trying to function on a day to day basis with shared vehicles.

Then there is the aging population. As we get older, we desire comfort and convenience even more. Car-sharing, in some dirty, smelly, smallish vehicle with sticky seats? After you.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:38 PM   #113
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
I suspect in 100 years people will speak about how we used to manually drive cars and police would regularly close down roads for hours as they cleaned up bodies and investigated accidents and youth will cringe trying to understand how that was ever a thing as a line of automated vehicles drive along in perfect unison like an amusement park ride.
Kind of like if you back to just before electricity was common and people used to use fire in their homes for lighting and heat. One of the leading causes of death was fire and fires that burned down good portions of towns were not uncommon. People lived in wood structures and would fall asleep with candles burning right next to them. The switch for many people was inconvenient at the time, but not too many people look back on that as being a bad thing in the long run.

Nowadays, many insurance companies won't touch old houses that have wood stoves or fireplaces. One day, it could be insurance companies that make driving manual vehicles too cost prohibitive. As some start moving over to automated cars and there are fewer people paying into the car insurance pool, the rates for those that hold out will probably go through the roof. I could see life and health insurance being affected as well by people who choose the more dangerous option.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:39 PM   #114
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear View Post
My question remains what does this mean for Alberta? This matters a great deal because Provincial government policies will have a huge impact upon how Alberta will weather this upcoming disruption (whenever it happens). Lougheed had the right approach (investing in the Heritage fund and innovation). I hope Albertans take a look at the Wildrose, PC and NDP's long term economic development assumptions when they cast their vote in 2019.

In my mind, cutting taxes, shrinking government and focusing upon oil and gas is not good enough.
IMO, taking the tax revenue from O&G and throwing it at solar and other renewables is pointless. That won't create jobs or change the economy. You can't manufacture an economy.

I think we should be investing more in growth industries, like AI. We need more infrastructure like the nano-technology building at the UofA - more money into high-end education. And tax incentives for businesses to hire and grow.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 02:51 PM   #115
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
The cost spilt depends on whether the maintenance costs of a car are driven by per km or per day. In my opinion most costs are driven by a per km affect. Therefore 9 people using 1 car will not be dramatically more expensive than just owning your own self driving car. The capital cost would be the main difference.

The other break down in this model is rush hour. Everyone needs a car in rush hour so for this model to work you'd need enough cars to service peak demand therefore 80% of the cars on unused for 20Hrs per day.

So your back to this service only working for those who are using transit or bikes to work or working from home.
There's a reason there's so much argument about future tech, because no one really knows what's going to happen. I see your points, but:

1) The costs are driven mostly by capital costs (purchase price) and maintenance. A large corporation has a giant purchasing power advantage over you and likely own their own maintenance service which is also a large financial advantage to owning your own. The mileage costs are going to be energy, which again the purchasing power of the service trumps an individual owner. This is all before the scale effect (more person-miles/day in a service car than individual ownership) which will likely be huge.

This leads to:
2) Money. Individual preferences matter a whole or less than money. We can talk about preferring your own car, and hating using someone else's car, etc. But if it saves you $400 a month, people will switch. Then service will improve

The rush hour conundrum is not agreed upon by anyone in the prediction industry. Some economists suggest that more ridership leads to more congested roads. Some argue that because upwards of 90 of downtown traffic is people looking for parking this could be ameliorated. Also, most traffic congestion is due to human issues:

Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Old 05-07-2017, 02:52 PM   #116
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction View Post
Kind of like if you back to just before electricity was common and people used to use fire in their homes for lighting and heat. One of the leading causes of death was fire and fires that burned down good portions of towns were not uncommon. People lived in wood structures and would fall asleep with candles burning right next to them. The switch for many people was inconvenient at the time, but not too many people look back on that as being a bad thing in the long run.

Nowadays, many insurance companies won't touch old houses that have wood stoves or fireplaces. One day, it could be insurance companies that make driving manual vehicles too cost prohibitive. As some start moving over to automated cars and there are fewer people paying into the car insurance pool, the rates for those that hold out will probably go through the roof. I could see life and health insurance being affected as well by people who choose the more dangerous option.
There was nothing inconvenient about switching to electricity. But I get your point.

To the second bold: if automated cars mean substantially fewer accidents, won't that mean fewer accidents for those driving manually as well?

The other factor here, is that with automated driving readily available, primarily only 'drivers' will continue to drive. One of the reasons that higher speeds are safe and effective in Europe is that the quality of drivers is higher. And that is because not everyone drives. In NA, everybody drives because cities are built in such a way that everyone has to.

If octogenarians, soccer moms, and DWOs switched to automated vehicles, I would think the number of accidents, and therefore the cost of insurance, would plummet for everyone.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 02:59 PM   #117
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
There's a reason there's so much argument about future tech, because no one really knows what's going to happen. I see your points, but:

1) The costs are driven mostly by capital costs (purchase price) and maintenance. A large corporation has a giant purchasing power advantage over you and likely own their own maintenance service which is also a large financial advantage to owning your own. The mileage costs are going to be energy, which again the purchasing power of the service trumps an individual owner. This is all before the scale effect (more person-miles/day in a service car than individual ownership) which will likely be huge.

This leads to:
2) Money. Individual preferences matter a whole or less than money. We can talk about preferring your own car, and hating using someone else's car, etc. But if it saves you $400 a month, people will switch. Then service will improve

The rush hour conundrum is not agreed upon by anyone in the prediction industry. Some economists suggest that more ridership leads to more congested roads. Some argue that because upwards of 90 of downtown traffic is people looking for parking this could be ameliorated. Also, most traffic congestion is due to human issues:

Still waiting to see a reason why corporations are going to throw massive amounts of money into buying fleets of vehicles so that you and I can save some money.

Also, maintenance is more a function of mileage than time. If vehicles are being used constantly, maintenance goes up substantially, and they don't last nearly as long. I recently had an interesting conversation with a cabby. His vehicle was being used 24/7 and as a result, was running up 300,000 kms per year. He was very happy if he got 2 years from a vehicle. Also, he was going through 2 sets of winters each winter.

You don't just automatically save piles of money.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 03:08 PM   #118
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Salmon with Arms
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Still waiting to see a reason why corporations are going to throw massive amounts of money into buying fleets of vehicles so that you and I can save some money.

Also, maintenance is more a function of mileage than time. If vehicles are being used constantly, maintenance goes up substantially, and they don't last nearly as long. I recently had an interesting conversation with a cabby. His vehicle was being used 24/7 and as a result, was running up 300,000 kms per year. He was very happy if he got 2 years from a vehicle. Also, he was going through 2 sets of winters each winter.

You don't just automatically save piles of money.
1) GM invests $500M in Lyft. Would they invest half a billion dollars just to help us save money? It's because they're Blockbuster and realize they need to invest in movie streaming or become obsolete. That's why.
Quote:
GM and Lyft said they will work together to develop a network of self-driving cars that riders can call up on-demand, a vision of the future shared by the likes of Uber Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick and Google-parent Alphabet Inc. More immediately, America’s largest automaker will offer Lyft drivers vehicles for short-term rent through various hubs in U.S. cities, the companies said in separate statements on Monday.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-against-uber

2) Yes maintenance costs are associated with mileage, but when you're your own shop, it's cheaper. It's still much lower power mile than ownership.
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 03:09 PM   #119
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
There's a reason there's so much argument about future tech, because no one really knows what's going to happen. I see your points, but:

1) The costs are driven mostly by capital costs (purchase price) and maintenance. A large corporation has a giant purchasing power advantage over you and likely own their own maintenance service which is also a large financial advantage to owning your own. The mileage costs are going to be energy, which again the purchasing power of the service trumps an individual owner. This is all before the scale effect (more person-miles/day in a service car than individual ownership) which will likely be huge.

This leads to:
2) Money. Individual preferences matter a whole or less than money. We can talk about preferring your own car, and hating using someone else's car, etc. But if it saves you $400 a month, people will switch. Then service will improve

The rush hour conundrum is not agreed upon by anyone in the prediction industry. Some economists suggest that more ridership leads to more congested roads. Some argue that because upwards of 90 of downtown traffic is people looking for parking this could be ameliorated. Also, most traffic congestion is due to human issues:

I can see the cost difference existing but I'm unsure how much you actually end up seeing and how much just ends up as profit in a market that will be at least as monopolistic as cell phones. The cost for no one to own a car is much lower than the cost for x% to not own their car. And given these companies want to ensure profitability there will be a sweet spot for this car sharing option.

The rush hour problem isn't congestion it's that the demand for cars will only exist at rush hour unless people will be willing to car pool. (Which they could do now but choose not to). Changing from a driverless car from a driven one does not make car pooling any more attractive. So if car pooling does not increase and congestion decreases reducing transit times and parking costs no longer exist because I just send the car home all of these things incentivize me owning my own car.

And if people aren't willing to car pool the usage rate of the vehicles won't be high enough to get the benefits of car sharing for most people. Cartogo is an excellent example. Making car to go driverless doesn't really change the car 2 go model. It makes it a little easier to get a car but outside of that the automated fleet of corporate owned vehicles is no different.

So while automation will happen automation actually incentivized individual ownership by reducing insurance, parking and congestion costs.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2017, 03:13 PM   #120
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
There was nothing inconvenient about switching to electricity. But I get your point.
It was at one point looked at as an unecessary luxury by those that didn't want to pay for it though. People then, had the same concerns as people now when new things are introduced. It was inconvenient in the sense that communities had to splurge for the infrastructure and people needed to retrofit their structures. "Who is going to pay for it?" Will my taxes go up?"

Quote:
To the second bold: if automated cars mean substantially fewer accidents, won't that mean fewer accidents for those driving manually as well?

The other factor here, is that with automated driving readily available, primarily only 'drivers' will continue to drive. One of the reasons that higher speeds are safe and effective in Europe is that the quality of drivers is higher. And that is because not everyone drives. In NA, everybody drives because cities are built in such a way that everyone has to.

If octogenarians, soccer moms, and DWOs switched to automated vehicles, I would think the number of accidents, and therefore the cost of insurance, would plummet for everyone.
I just don't see insurance companies agreeing to lose tonnes of money. I can see them jacking up prices and making it a luxury for the wealthy. Plus, as they become more rare, the cost of buying, owning and maintaining them will go up due to supply and demand. Much like insuring a high-end sports car or a classic car is now. Or horse and buggy insurance for that matter.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."

Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 05-07-2017 at 04:15 PM.
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:13 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021