It's just too far ahead of its time. You need to be able to do this without building special infrastructure for the pods, which is an enormous risky up-front investment for something that is, frankly, almost certain to fail. Times will change and the infrastructure can't change with it. And you can't roll the system out a little bit and get a little bit of the benefits; it's useless until you fully cover a significant set of use cases.
By contrast, if the pods were self-driving cars on the roads that already exist, the economics change completely. No special infrastructure. Can easily roll out on a small scale for small benefits. Can easily ramp up. Massively smaller initial outlay. System can grow and pay for itself as it goes.
The problem with self-driving cars as a cure-all is the Jevon's Paradox: if the costs of auto transport are knocked down, then everyone will use them at the slightest whim, especially when tired or drunk. People can live 2+ hours away from work and it won't be a problem when they can work or sleep in their car.
I'm not saying this will happen but I do fear that mobile homes will make a comeback as people live permanently on the road in cars they don't have to drive or pay property taxes for, all while taking up 2-3x the space of a regular car.
In terms of getting a system like this set up, you seem to be complaining that it might succeed too much. Perhaps so, but that's a problem the inventor here would prefer to have rather than the one he has now.
Also, if that did happen, the RV might take up 2-3x the space of a car while moving, but then they end up not taking up the space of a house while stationary, which they usually are, so, you know, probably a net win for density. On the off chance this took off bigtime the economy would further adjust (rentable spots, etc.).
Let's put it this way: we had te technology for basic solar energy in the 19th century. If we had forbidden fossil fuels and exclusively used solar and other renewables like hydro, we would have taken a much longer time to get where we are today, but the environment would have benefited and we wouldn't be in such trouble with climate change. The path we choose is just that: a choice. And cheap choices are easier.
I'm all for innovation, but one of the most laughable human qualities is the idea that there will ever be a solution to a problem that makes the problem go away. Ex: We may have eliminated smallpox but if it ever came back we'd be in serious trouble.
The RV idea assumes minuscule fuel costs and I doubt it would be anything more than a niche appeal, like bikers, but like bikers, it could be annoying and disruptive (god I hate how the tech industry made that word only mean good things) for the people around them.
People could sleep in their RVs as they drive around at night. Again, assuming low fuel costs.
Comments
It's just too far ahead of its time. You need to be able to do this without building special infrastructure for the pods, which is an enormous risky up-front investment for something that is, frankly, almost certain to fail. Times will change and the infrastructure can't change with it. And you can't roll the system out a little bit and get a little bit of the benefits; it's useless until you fully cover a significant set of use cases.
By contrast, if the pods were self-driving cars on the roads that already exist, the economics change completely. No special infrastructure. Can easily roll out on a small scale for small benefits. Can easily ramp up. Massively smaller initial outlay. System can grow and pay for itself as it goes.
The problem with self-driving cars as a cure-all is the Jevon's Paradox: if the costs of auto transport are knocked down, then everyone will use them at the slightest whim, especially when tired or drunk. People can live 2+ hours away from work and it won't be a problem when they can work or sleep in their car.
I'm not saying this will happen but I do fear that mobile homes will make a comeback as people live permanently on the road in cars they don't have to drive or pay property taxes for, all while taking up 2-3x the space of a regular car.
In terms of getting a system like this set up, you seem to be complaining that it might succeed too much. Perhaps so, but that's a problem the inventor here would prefer to have rather than the one he has now.
Also, if that did happen, the RV might take up 2-3x the space of a car while moving, but then they end up not taking up the space of a house while stationary, which they usually are, so, you know, probably a net win for density. On the off chance this took off bigtime the economy would further adjust (rentable spots, etc.).
Let's put it this way: we had te technology for basic solar energy in the 19th century. If we had forbidden fossil fuels and exclusively used solar and other renewables like hydro, we would have taken a much longer time to get where we are today, but the environment would have benefited and we wouldn't be in such trouble with climate change. The path we choose is just that: a choice. And cheap choices are easier.
I'm all for innovation, but one of the most laughable human qualities is the idea that there will ever be a solution to a problem that makes the problem go away. Ex: We may have eliminated smallpox but if it ever came back we'd be in serious trouble.
Wouldn't gas costs kill this? You can't be driving all the time and there are scant few public places where you can park a mobile home.
I mean, pretty much any technology can be imagined to bring about a dystopia, but I think it's quite a leap for self-driving cars.
The RV idea assumes minuscule fuel costs and I doubt it would be anything more than a niche appeal, like bikers, but like bikers, it could be annoying and disruptive (god I hate how the tech industry made that word only mean good things) for the people around them.
People could sleep in their RVs as they drive around at night. Again, assuming low fuel costs.