Study shows we may be closer to sharing self-driving cars than we think

Fifteen years from now, we may be relying more on sharing autonomous vehicles than owning or driving them ourselves, according to a new study from ABI Research.

|
Evan Vucci/AP/File
A Continental Chrysler 300C during a demonstration of self driving car technology on Capitol Hill in Washington (March 15, 2016).

General Motors and Uber are clamoring for fleets of autonomous cars to serve folks who don't own cars themselves. A new study from ABI Research suggests that they may be on to something that could give them a leg-up in the looming transportation shift.

ABI analyzed a range of data from automakers, the technology sector, and consumers, compiling them in two reports on Automotive Safety and Autonomous Driving and Smart Transportation. Those reports suggest that self-driving cars will disrupt the car world sooner than many people think. By 2030, ABI believes that 400 million people will rely on autonomous cars, many of which will be owned by large corporations rather than individuals.

How will we reach that point? ABI's Dominique Bonte says the transition will occur "in three phases: street rental service, ride sharing service, and robotic service. The automotive industry is in the process of merging phases one and two, with robotic service to become the ultimate form of transportation for its availability, convenience, and affordability."

Three phases of auto industry disruption

Phase one, by Bonte's definition, is exemplified by Zipcar. Such companies often take the form of a club, charging annual membership dues. Members can then rent vehicles from a company fleet, housed at specific locations.

Uber and Lyft are the poster children for phase two. Ride-sharing is a lot like carpooling or cabbing: it depends on an individual car owner accepting passengers in exchange for payment. 

Car-sharing is slightly different, in that it depends on car owners allowing others to borrow their vehicles for special trips, without the owner being present. By that definition, GM's new "Maven" service is a perfect example of car-sharing.

And what, exactly, is ABI's phase three, robotic service? Is it ride-sharing, or is it car-sharing?

Essentially, it's both. Bonte says that the already-slippery distinction between car-sharing and ride-sharing will soon disappear because it depends on human drivers. In the future, as cars become autonomous and human drivers become less relevant, precisely who owns a car will be less important than the fact that it is shared.  

It's not too hard to imagine a world where we depend on autonomous taxis that not only pick us up on street corners, but also come to our house at certain times to take us to work or parties. Whether those vehicles are owned and insured by a company like GM or our own families won't make much difference.

For those who take pride in ownership, such a scenario is hard to envision, and in fairness to skeptics, it's a little hard to believe that 400 million people could come to rely so heavily on autonomous cars in just 15 years.

Still, it's hard to deny the savings that autonomous cars could provide. As Bonte explains, "Car sharing is successful because the increased efficiency through higher vehicle utilization rates drives down costs, which results in more affordable transportation." And as we've seen in other fields, efficiency and cost-savings often determine the rate at which technology is adopted: the cheaper the tech, the faster it can go mainstream, and vice versa.

This article first appeared at The Car Connection.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Study shows we may be closer to sharing self-driving cars than we think
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2016/0324/Study-shows-we-may-be-closer-to-sharing-self-driving-cars-than-we-think
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe