Use Your Imagination
- Posted by ryan on February 18th, 2010 filed in Economics
A few final points about innovative personal vehicles:
- I wouldn’t begin to propose that tiny one- or two-seater electric cars that top out at 40 mph would replace all vehicles. I don’t know why folks jump to that particular conclusion. I began this entire exercise by noting that during commutes, many vehicles are occupied by one person who isn’t hauling anything more than a briefcase. There are clearly times when more seats or more trunk space or higher speeds are needed. Obviously, at those times, you’d want something else.
- Which implies, of course, that a household might have more than one vehicle. As I understand it, this is pretty common.
- The fact that larger vehicles would still be on the road implies that there would be some danger associated with driving or riding in a small vehicle. It’s also dangerous to ride a bike in the city. My point, actually, was that because super-small cars would be somewhat risky to drive on regular roads, relative to full-size vehicles, our inclination would be to regulate the possibility of their existence away. The critical response I’ve received along these lines confirms that belief. I’m saying the net benefits of permitting these small vehicles would nonetheless outweigh the costs, in all probability.
- When I said “for the price of a computer” I was thinking of my last MacBook purchase. If people tend to buy computers for a couple hundred dollars these days, then that’s my mistake. I imagine that innovative vehicles might ultimately retail for $2,000 to $3,000.
The biggest point of all, I should add, was that the particular regulations that apply to cars and that work to keep much smaller, lighter vehicles off the road likely eliminate the possibility of experimentation with innovative personal vehicles. I don’t know for sure that vehicle technology would change drastically. Frankly, neither do any of my critics. But there are technologies out there that could be deployed to produce much more efficient and practical vehicles. And if we aren’t prepared to open the roads to such vehicles, then we will, without a doubt, miss out on the opportunity to take advantage of the market forces that have given us the iPhones, and the Droids, and the Kindles, and so on.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Man, is this how you pace?
February 19th, 2010 at 10:04 am
My favorite criticism, as always, comes from the dubious Ms. McArdle. “And of course . . .lighter vehicles are more dangerous.” No my dear, reckless drivers are dangerous. Especially when they are behind the wheel of what are little more than glorified, stripped down tanks like a Hummer. We are a soft and easily crushed species. Just because individually we feel safer inside a rolling tank, doesn’t mean we are safer in the aggregate when we all try to do the same. This sort of over simplistic reasoning is her hallmark, but it still bugs the hell out of me.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:49 am
This is one of the problems that self-driving cars are likely to solve if/when they get here. Self-driving cars mean that self-driving taxis become much cheaper, which in turn means that people can rent a variety of vehicles for their various trips rather than having to own a single large car for everything.
February 19th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“…..particular regulations that apply to cars and that work to keep much smaller, lighter vehicles off the road likely eliminate the possibility of experimentation with innovative personal vehicles”
Such regs exist in Washington State, not a hotbed of anti-car fervor. Cars as small (as I think you personally would ever want) are street legal.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I’m saying the net benefits of permitting these small vehicles would nonetheless outweigh the costs, in all probability.
This is amazing to me. You’re taking stuff like convenience and efficiency and saying, literally, that they’re worth another ten thousand people’s lives every year.
I mean I could certainly have an “innovative” new car that concealed a 12-gauge shotgun in the steering column, rigged to deliver two barrels of buckshot into the driver’s chest upon any impact greater than 10 mph. And it’s certainly the case that our modern regulations prevent this innovative vehicle from being marketed.
But do you seriously think we lose something as a result of that? You sweepingly assert that the only thing wrong with our cars is that they don’t kill enough people every year, and that with the blood of another ten or twenty thousand spilled on our roads, we could have magic flying cars that drive themselves and never run out of gas.
This entire conversation has been the stupidest thing I’ve ever read in my life, and really drives home how conservatives rail against “regulation” without ever in their lives understanding what the regulations are for.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
“I wouldn’t begin to propose that tiny one- or two-seater electric cars that top out at 40 mph would replace all vehicles…There are clearly times when more seats or more trunk space or higher speeds are needed…
Which implies, of course, that a household might have more than one vehicle.”As I understand it, this is pretty common.
But therein lies one the two real problems. Why would a household pay to buy, insure and store a vehicle that can be used for only a portion of that household’s transport needs when one of the vehicles it already owns will fulfill all of them? Where is the advantage to be gained by the expenditure of the extra few thousand dollars?
The second problem involves the degree to which even relatively short commutes and city and suburban errands involve highway use at speeds higher than your idea suggests, something you never addressed.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I agree — I ride my bike in the city, and while of course this puts me at some risk, I don’t believe I’m at more risk than a person in a vehicle driving 70mph. Honestly, at that speed you are very likely to die in a crash, regardless of the size of the vehicle. I also just can’t get distracted in the same way a typical driver can.
But your broader point — that the net benefit would outweigh the cost — is also likely true. Yeah, some of these things are going to get crushed, but they pollute less, and they are going to in turn crush fewer people.
Somewhat of a non-sequitor, but I really think we should be pushing public transit more than anything. If you do the math, it could, if it were run differently, be vastly more efficient and safe than cars in urban and suburban areas.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Somewhat of a non-sequitor, but I really think we should be pushing public transit more than anything. If you do the math, it could, if it were run differently, be vastly more efficient and safe than cars in urban and suburban areas.
What different way of running transit, that would supposedly make it vastly more efficient and safe than cars, do you propose?
February 19th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Most of the critics here don’t make much sense. The senselessness boggles my poor mind.
A small, efficient car next to a big, conventional one on the road and in my driveway makes perfect sense. I already own an SUV and an Ultra Low Emmission coupe. I drive whichever one suites the purpose of the trip at hand. Sometimes I go to the grocery and sometimes I drive across the country. My coupe gets just about the best mileage available and yet when I bought it I wanted a small car that got twice that mileage.
Wake up people. The way things are is not how they are going to be! Forever.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
*What different way of running transit, that would supposedly make it vastly more efficient and safe than cars, do you propose?*
Commercial airlines are vastly safer than cars, and vastly more efficient for long-haul trips. So are trains.
Next question.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
@Fred
Megan didn’t say that society is safer in aggregate with everyone driving bigger cars, she said lighter vehicles are more dangerous. Which is absolutely true. It doesn’t really matter what anyone else is doing, you’re always safer in a bigger vehicle whether that means steamrolling Ryan’s deathtraps or hitting a tank of equal size. It’s a version of the tragedy of the commons. Everyone looks to have a marginally safer vehicle and therefore makes everyone less safe. The easiest resolution to this problem is some kind of ‘regulation’ on vehicle weight for public roads.
On a similar note, the only benefit that these ‘innovative’ vehicles have over a used car is gas mileage. There’s no way that gas under $10.00 a gallon makes these remotely competitive with a 35 mpg used car. For that matter, the gas usage and pollution between an ‘innovative’ vehicle and a 35 mpg car is dwarfed by the difference between a 35 mpg car and a 20 mpg car.
I question the innovative part, because the rest of the world doesn’t have our regulations, and yet the only thing to come of it is something like an autorickshaw. Costs about $2000, not climate controlled, slow, noisy, dangerous, yet takes passengers. If you’re not taking passengers, a motorcycle has it beat in every way.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
worromot, you haven’t answered the first one.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
One thing missing from this discussion is speed. Most trips are very short and speeds of 30 mph or more don’t make much difference for travel time. Many European cities are moving to (or are considering) speed limits near 20 mph within urban areas — safe for people and safe for light vehicles carrying people. Modern vehicle requirements try to protect the occupants of cars moving at high speed while ignoring the affect the resulting vehicles have on what they hit. Limiting the speed of light vehicles — like many electric cars are currently limited — doesn’t address the problem of a 30 mph 4000 lb car on an urban street.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
I don’t have the numbers to fully debunk the “more small cars would mean more road fatalities” argument, but I want to test some logic. It seems to be true that drivers in small cars are more vulnerable in high speed collisions with larger vehicles such as SUVs or trucks. However, it should follow that pedestrians are at less risk from accidents with smaller cars than with SUVs/trucks, and it should also be true that the drivers of trucks and SUVs are at less risk in collisions with small cars.
As a control, we can look at Europe, where SUVs and trucks make up a smaller proportion of the fleet mix than in the US, and much more of the fleet are sub-compacts. Looking at Wikipedia’s entry on road fatalities, we see that countries such as Germany, UK, Sweden have fewer road fatalities per 1 million inhabitants or per 1 million driver kilometers than the United States. There may be other factors at play there, but the higher prevalence of smaller cars in those countries does not appear to make the roads any more dangerous than the US.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Why would a household pay to buy…
Because it is much, much cheaper to operate.
I’ve got 3 kids, and when I go out with all of them I take a big van. But when I run errands on my own I take my much smaller Civic, despite the big van also having that capability. A family would have a mix of car types because they are flexible to maximize usage costs.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:49 am
@Fred
So would you sell your Civic and buy the one-seater, no-storage, useless as a backup vehicle for your errands? Or would you buy a third vehicle, wiping out the cost savings of the mpg gain with the cost of the vehicle, insurance, and maintenance. Why not a motorcycle for the third vehicle, since you’ve got the Civic for rainy/cold days?
By the way, 2-3 grand is absurd for this fantasy vehicle, they’re currently selling at 20-30 grand like the Myers Motors NmG. Economies of scale aren’t going to bring costs down by an order of magnitude.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:05 am
If I were going to sell the Civic (or trade it in at some point in the future), I absolutely would consider a cheaper-to-operate car.
I don’t know anyone who would be such an idiot as to move to another car so quickly as to cut into potential future savings, particularly since buying the first generation of any product is risky. Wait until the price drops, the bugs are worked out, and then when a change in vehicles come about naturally, the option to have a cheaper “around town” vehicle becomes attractive.
Living in the Pocono Mountains, I would never consider a motorcycle as a second “car.” Any vehicle I’d drive around here would have to have a distinct “inside.”
February 20th, 2010 at 1:21 am
I feel like no one supporting this idea lives in a place like Los Angeles, where traffic is already a tremendous problem. To unleash a bunch of glorified golf carts that top out at 30mph all over the city would massively magnify congestion. Show me a minicar that gets up to 40 easily, and maybe you’re making some sense.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:07 am
Well gosh, based on his comments Chet is an easily incensed nitwit, isn’t he? Stupidist conversation he’s heard in his LIFE?? Hmmm…
The concept of regulation to save lives as an end-all is meaningless.
It’s been pointed out that lowering the U.S. freeway speeds from 65 to 55 saved lives.
Then certainly, lowering the freeway speed from 55 to 45 would save lives as well. 45 to 35 would also save lives. 35 to 25, same thing.
So what? Pros and cons have to be taken in context. I drive a motorcycle. By his logic, Chet believes they should be outlawed.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:07 am
The reason people will continue to buy vehicles that get poor gas mileage is analogous their motivation to purchase iPhones. The worst thing about the iPhones is its primary function — as a phone. Likewise, people choose SUVs over minivans for reasons that contradict their primary purpose. The minivan rides more comfortably and safely, more readily accommodates and boards 7-8 riders, and gets better gas mileage. But, like the iPhone, SUV’s are cool looking and confer more status upon it’s owner.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Josh has a good point for drivers in mid to large size cities, the prospect of greater congestion. Speed times vehicle passenger capacity equals greater flow. Reduce both speed and passenger capacity and the traffic flow will drop. Human nature (especially that of we urban humans) will rebel; the only question is what form the rebellion will take. Increased violation of speed limits? Road rage? Or something more orderly, like repeal of the laws that created the congestion? Let’s face it: we are people in a hurry, and engineering and legislation won’t change that.
February 20th, 2010 at 10:07 am
“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?” — Steven Wright
On a somewhat smaller scale, you can’t have a vehicle for every purpose. Where would you park them? The problem is particularly acute for the city-dwellers that Ryan thinks of as the target market for these.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Speed times vehicle passenger capacity equals greater flow.
“Capacity” is the wrong word. Many people commute in vehicles with excess capacity.
February 20th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Couple of points.
First, the safety asymmetry is quite significant on the small car. However, it is not so significant that it cannot be overcome. Search google for videos of the Insurance Institute test-crashing 50’s cars into 00’s cars, head-on. The steel-and-iron frame cars of others’ youths get trashed by the fiberglass-and-plastic engineering of today. Relative to size, the small cars may safer than bikes or scooters.
Second, by purposefully setting a hard cap on the speed limit, say 45 mph, the cars will have not only a set radius but will be unfit for, by design, certain roads as well as freeways/interstates, where their safety issues would be amplified.
Finally, while drivers may have a hard time adapting to bikes/scooters on the road/sidewalk/whereever, that is because they weave in and out of traffic and shift between pedestrian and “car” at will. However, a small car that is 100% a car will be easier to adapt to.
The example I think of it about 20 years ago, when suburban soccer moms started discovering the SUV as a primary vehicle and Geo released its line of fairly small cars. Suddenly the roads were filled with a greater variety of sizes; drivers adapted with decent ease.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
As mindboggled said, most of the commenters seem to think that what is now will ever be. Peekaboologists, I think Colbert calls them.
The safety thing is blown out of proportion by some commenters. It’s not that small cars are inherently less safe - in fact, vehicles like the SmartCar have lots of safety features, and in a collision with similar vehicle, could actually result in less injury. But yeah, in a collision with today’s SUVs, not so much. Yes, right now the SmartCar etc are quite small compared to other vehicles and that causes serious potential safety conflicts. But very few of the vehicles that will be on the road in 20 years exist now. And I’ll bet that on average vehicles on the road in 20 - 40 years will be much lighter and at least somewhat smaller. But do we really think we’ll still be buying Hummers in 20-40 years?
Same with our infrastructure - from 1/2 to 2/3 of the development (neighborhoods, stores, roads, etc) that will exist in 2050 have not yet been built. There is no reason to think that, costs and consumer preferences will continue to shift demand away from ever-larger vehicles and houses to smaller cars and homes, we won’t start “right-sizing” our infrastructure.
It seems to me that the most limiting factor is interior space. Safety conflicts will ease, and range will improve, but we’ll always occasionally need extra space for passengers and cargo. I live close to work and shopping, and my bike is tricked to meet most of my needs. But when I need to carry 2×4s or whatever home, or I have extra passengers, I use my (small) car.
As a single guy, I don’t want to own more than one car. For couples and families, though, I could see where SmartCars could become a viable 2nd car option. And while they are nowhere near $2-3k now, they will get cheaper.
BTW, the SmartCar now costs from $10k - 15k. And BTW, I am not shilling for SmartCars, but I do think they are a pretty good prototype: 2-passenger vehicles with adequate cargo space for most shopping.
February 20th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
It’s been pointed out that lowering the U.S. freeway speeds from 65 to 55 saved lives.
Then certainly, lowering the freeway speed from 55 to 45 would save lives as well. 45 to 35 would also save lives. 35 to 25, same thing.
Total math fail. Let’s try the logic in reverse: At a speed limit of zero, nobody is killed in car accidents because the cars aren’t even moving. At a limit of 1 mph, nobody is killed in car accidents either. At a limit of 2 mph, nobody is killed, because you can still be struck by a car at that speed and not be hurt in any way.
So we’ve proved that, if k speed is safe, k+1 speed must be safe too, by Aclow’s logic. Ergo it stands to reason that we need absolutely no speed limit whatsoever - cars barreling down residential side streets at 200 mph, according to Aclow, put absolutely no one in danger.
Pros and cons have to be taken in context.
Agreed. Ryan’s given absolutely no context whatsoever. He simply sweepingly asserts that, if only our cars were allowed to be substantially more dangerous, they would drive themselves and run on unicorn farts.
Like I said it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Ryan thinks that it’s “regulations” that necessitate everything from unused passenger space, to 14-gallon gas tanks, all the way up to spinning rims and extra fucking cup-holders; that it’s “regulations” that make people deliriously think that a one-car garage should probably hold one car and that a vehicle that can be operated at 60 mph can also be operated at half that.
I’d like him to be more specific about exactly what regulations, in his view, are standing in the way of American ownership of a fleet of mini-Chitty Chitty Bang Bangs. I mean that, be specific. Exactly which US regulations force cars to have cupholders and space for 4?
February 20th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Obviously such a small vehicle is NOT on a freeway.
I would use one on the enumerable trips of 1-2 miles on city streets which are EXTREMELY common.
February 21st, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I would use one on the enumerable trips of 1-2 miles on city streets which are EXTREMELY common.
Why not just take your freeway car? The difference between 30 and 60 mpg over all of one mile is completely negligible: the less efficient car uses only 2 and a half fluid ounces of extra gas over that short journey.
It’s short urban journeys where mpg improvements matter the least, because the journeys are so short. Ryan is proposing a whole new class of necessarily-expensive and incredibly dangerous cars, restricted to the types of journeys where their fuel efficiency matters the absolute least.
February 21st, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Chet - gas savings through increased MPG depends upon total miles driven by trip type. If all of one’s trips are short, then the gas savings through more efficient vehicles accrue accordingly.
Also, you keep assuming that these are “incredibly dangerous cars”. It depends. If the average size of cars of the future continues to be what it is now, yes, then there is an inherent saftey risk due to large v small collisions. But that’s more peekaboology. If cars get smaller, the risk goes down. And, have you ever looked at the safety features of some of these cars? Better materials, better technology = more safety. Continued improvements will be driven by consumer demand for safety, and that demand keeps going up.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Chet said: “Like I said it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.”
…The only way that could be true is if you read so infrequently that you had to sound out the words to figure out what they spelled.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about your veracity.
PS - Unicorns don’t fart. That’s something you’d know… if you were a reader.
March 20th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Small vehicles mixing with large ones in traffic are already routine in the developing world. India’s car giant Tata has a new micro-car, the Nano, also hits Ryan’s suggested price point, just over $2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_nano
Everyone I know in Indian transport planning is terrified of it, because while it’s small it’s much bigger than the motorbikes on which many Indian families travel now, and nobody knows where they will find room for them all.