The bulk of the cost of a taxi is the salary of the driver; remove the driver and the cost of the taxi goes way down and people don't need cars any more. Driverless car sharing is similar.
If a taxi service buys 100 driverless cars and charges 15% net margin on the cost of service and operation, then a drive across town could be $10 or $15 rather than $30. Suddenly it would be relatively cheaper to use a taxi rather than own a car.
This is different from car-sharing because the car could pick you up at your house.
If a taxi service buys 100 driverless cars and charges 15% net margin on the cost of service and operation, then a drive across town could be $10 or $15 rather than $30. Suddenly it would be relatively cheaper to use a taxi rather than own a car.
This is different from car-sharing because the car could pick you up at your house.
3 comments:
It's amazing this hasn't factored much in the discussion. Everyday expenses does go down, but the initial cost could be quite high as software could be expensive. The cost factors in royalties and the hours used for testing and debugging. But of course that will be recouped eventually, as you don't have to employ drivers anymore, hence the company will be saving up for not having to pay those people's salary. Though as long as findings indicate that is is as safe as actual people driving the wheel, then perhaps the government may allow its use on the road.
Matt Wynan @ Innovative Defense Technologies
http://inhabitat.com/nyc-will-replace-taxis-with-new-driverless-google-cabs/
Because what I think is usually a slightly morphed plagiarism of something I've heard and conveniently forgotten, I try to ask Dr. Google about what others have written before muttering my own inanities. This time I didn't google ("driverless taxis") until afterwards and wow: one of the first hits is an April Fools joke that got me for about 20 seconds.
Post a Comment