The Economist über die plausibelste Entwicklung selbstfahrender Autos. Zuerst ergibt nur ein Sharing-Modell Sinn:
Although today’s experimental vehicles are modified versions of ordinary cars, with steering wheels that eerily turn by themselves, future AVs will have no steering wheel or pedals and will come in all sorts of shapes and sizes; pods capable of carrying six or eight people may prove to be the most efficient design. Rather than work everywhere, these pods will initially operate within geographically limited and well-mapped urban areas. And they will be shared “robotaxis”, summoned when needed using a ride-hailing app. The first self-driving vehicle you ride in will be shared, not owned, for a combination of technological and economic reasons. […]
The initial deployment of self-driving vehicles as robotaxis makes sense because they are limited to a particular area—and because the sensors needed for a fully autonomous AV to sense its surroundings and figure out how to respond currently cost more than the vehicle itself. That is less of a problem for a shared robotaxi, however, which will be in use and generating revenue for several hours a day. (Private cars, by contrast, are used on average only about 5% of the time.)
Die Kostenstruktur ist, wenig überraschend, sehr gut für Robotaxis, also AVs im On-Demand-Modell:
At the moment, travelling by Uber or another ride-hailing network costs around $2.50 a mile; but take away the driver, and that cost could fall to $0.70 a mile, reckon analysts at UBS. That is less than the $1.20 a mile it costs, on average, to run a private car (when fuel, insurance, servicing and other costs are factored in). So if robotaxis really work as advertised, many urbanites could ditch their cars and save thousands of dollars a year. UBS predicts that by 2035, 80% of people will use robotaxis in cities where they are available, and that urban car ownership will fall by 70%.
(Hervorhebung von mir)
Das sind die Szenarien, die auch in der Automobilbranche diskutiert werden.
Wie wenig man aus den eigenen Strukturen und Prozessen (und dem eigenen Ego) ausbrechen kann, sieht man schön daran, wie die deutsche Automobilbranche trotzdem weiter Diesel pusht.
Hand auf’s Herz: Wie viele „Robotaxis“ werden 2035 mit Diesel fahren?
The Economist weiter:
AVs would dramatically reduce the number of road deaths and, being electric, cut harmful emissions in places with clean grids. Clever routing, closer spacing between vehicles and dynamic congestion-charging could cut traffic. Like cars before them, AVs will reshape cities (a long commute is easier if you work or sleep en route) and redefine retailing (shops can come to you). Carmakers will face enormous change; instead of selling to individuals, they will supply fleet operators, or reinvent themselves as “mobility service” providers.
Deswegen versuchen BMW und co. mit ihren Carsharingdiensten Erfahrungen im Flottenmanagement aufzubauen. (Ich bin nicht sicher, wie sinnvoll das ist. Es schadet sicher nicht. Aber gegen Uber, Didi und co., die mit ihren „Robotaxis“ global agieren und auch nach Deutschland expandieren werden, hat man damit keine signifikant größere Chance. Wir werden sehen.)
Interessant auch, was selbstfahrende Autos für die Stadtplanung und Straßenregulierung bedeuten werden:
Economists and urban planners should rejoice because AVs mean that, for the first time, the unwelcome externalities associated with cars can be fully priced in. In particular, dynamic road-tolling and congestion charging, adjusting the cost per kilometre according to the time of day, level of traffic, length of trip and so on, will allow fine-tuning of entire urban-transport systems. By setting taxes and tolls accordingly, planners can subsidise rides in poor districts, for example, or encourage people to use public transport for longer trips. They can also ensure that the roads do not end up full of empty vehicles looking for riders. Such granular road-pricing is the logical conclusion of existing schemes. Some cities already have congestion-charging regimes, subsidise ride-hailing in poor areas ill-served by public transport, or impose per-ride taxes on Uber, Lyft and their kind.
Digitale Transportplattformen bringen einen nie dagewesenen Datenschatz mit, der hervorragend für Stadtplanung und -verbesserung genutzt werden kann.
(Angezapft müssen diese Systeme sowieso werden, um Straßennutzung besteuern zu können, wenn es keinen Sprit mehr gibt, der besteuert werden kann.)
Datenschutz wird ein Riesenthema werden:
For a start, AVs will record everything that happens in and around them. When a crime is committed, the police will ask nearby cars if they saw anything.
Selbstfahrende Autos werden de facto alles sehende Kameraungetüme auf Rädern sein. Der öffentliche Raum wird von diesen konstant aufgezeichnet oder zumindest beobachtet werden. Ein Horrorszenario für das Streetviewverpixelungsland.
Die Herausforderungen hören hier nicht auf:
Fleet operators will know a great deal about their riders. In one infamous analysis of passenger data, Uber identified one-night stands. If, as seems likely, human-driven cars are gradually banned on safety grounds, passengers could lose the freedom to go anywhere they choose. The risk that not all robotaxis will serve all destinations could open the door to segregation and discrimination. In authoritarian countries, robotaxis could restrict people’s movements. If all this sounds implausible, recall that Robert Moses notoriously designed the Southern State Parkway, linking New York City to Long Island’s beaches, with low bridges to favour access by rich whites in cars, while discriminating against poor blacks in buses. And China’s “social credit” system, which awards points based on people’s behaviour, already restricts train travel for those who step out of line.
Im Gegensatz zum gestern diskutierten YouTube-Dilemma deuten die hier angesprochenen Probleme allerdings auf vergleichsweise eindeutige politische Lösungen.