The big car companies are aware of this need and have shifted their focus to become “mobility” companies (you can read company goals for shareholders, it’s public), so you’re not alone on this fact.
Unfortunately, this also means that they’re all pining to make mobility a subscription service and vertically integrate as much as possible, which means to have their own fleets, repair shops and refueling / recharging stations to cut down cost. This would net them a good recurring source of revenue - which is golden - and reduce operating costs.
In theory this is more efficient for mankind, but this also means you can’t fix your own cars and a lack of money means that one of the last (unofficial) safety nets is torn from you the moment you’re out of cash as you’re no longer able to just sleep in your car.
It also means maintaining the status quo when it comes to car-centric infrastructure, as cars are still cars. There is no real incentive to build separated bike lanes or walkable shops if the amount of people using cars is still the same.
This would in theory all work without issue for city-dwellers in warm climates, but the same issues that plague(d) telecommunications seem to apply to shared self-driving cars; Electric cars happen to be the most efficient for fleet use as you can rotate them easily with minimal maintenance, but their limited range and need for service techs would mean that you would have rural areas that would be less profitable to serve. Reducing the supply of manual cars would impact their economy of scale, making them even more expensive to own outside cities.
The only way I see mobility companies not ramping up the prices to intolerable levels and ignoring poor people is if we did the same thing as telecommunications in 1934; by making fleet operators common carriers, making them responsible for their customers, and allowing smaller operators to openly use the larger operators’ infrastructure (charging stations, repair manuals, parts and technicians) so smaller mobility companies can exist.
The big car companies are aware of this need and have shifted their focus to become “mobility” companies (you can read company goals for shareholders, it’s public), so you’re not alone on this fact.
Unfortunately, this also means that they’re all pining to make mobility a subscription service and vertically integrate as much as possible, which means to have their own fleets, repair shops and refueling / recharging stations to cut down cost. This would net them a good recurring source of revenue - which is golden - and reduce operating costs.
In theory this is more efficient for mankind, but this also means you can’t fix your own cars and a lack of money means that one of the last (unofficial) safety nets is torn from you the moment you’re out of cash as you’re no longer able to just sleep in your car.
It also means maintaining the status quo when it comes to car-centric infrastructure, as cars are still cars. There is no real incentive to build separated bike lanes or walkable shops if the amount of people using cars is still the same.
This would in theory all work without issue for city-dwellers in warm climates, but the same issues that plague(d) telecommunications seem to apply to shared self-driving cars; Electric cars happen to be the most efficient for fleet use as you can rotate them easily with minimal maintenance, but their limited range and need for service techs would mean that you would have rural areas that would be less profitable to serve. Reducing the supply of manual cars would impact their economy of scale, making them even more expensive to own outside cities.
The only way I see mobility companies not ramping up the prices to intolerable levels and ignoring poor people is if we did the same thing as telecommunications in 1934; by making fleet operators common carriers, making them responsible for their customers, and allowing smaller operators to openly use the larger operators’ infrastructure (charging stations, repair manuals, parts and technicians) so smaller mobility companies can exist.