Driverless revolution? Not so fast
Before we all pile on the driverless car bandwagon, a few questions need to be answered
From the company that built its reputation on measuring the faults in competing brands of automobiles, it’s a helluva admission.
“Quality is a given,” says Mike VanNieuwkuyk, J.D. Power’s executive director of global automotive research, going on to note that back in the bad, old ’80s, “quality was a differentiator with the difference between good and bad easily quantified.”
Indeed, says VanNieuwkuyk, the difference between the most and least reliable cars in 1987 was well over 300 faults per 100 cars. Yet, in its most recent survey, that number is below 80. That’s less than one fault per car separating the bestand worst-built automobile you can buy. In other words, you can simply ignore your Toyota-loving neighbour when he denigrates your Land Rover/Mercedes-Benz/Volkswagen (European manufacturers have always had a more, er, problematic relationship with the notion of reliability) as troublesome. Yes, his Camry is probably more reliable. No, it doesn’t matter anymore. So, what does matter? Well, if you’ve read the papers at all lately, you know that fuel economy as a purchase motivator is ascendant. It’s still not as important as interior comfort and exterior styling — we remain, more than anything, a vain lot — but parsimony has passed performance as a reason that customers head to specific automobile showrooms.
But as much as fuel consumption has moved up the consumers’ priority list, its advancement pales in comparison to the rising popularity of convenience and connectivity features. Listening to VanNieuwkuyk’s speech at J.D. Power’s recent Talk AUTO Canada conference in Toronto, one can’t help but think we’ve all become lazy, spoiled gits who want to be hardwired to our cellphones and would prefer if the darned car would just drive itself.
According to J.D. Power’s research, the take rate among American consumers for remote starters is up some 63 per cent since 2007 and automatic climate control is more sought after than ever.
Which brings us to the study’s perhaps most ambiguous data, the interest in self-driving cars. Indeed, while Power’s data regarding the interest about autonomous automobiles has remained pretty steady at 20 per cent. Last year’s wonderment of “what can this do for me?” has morphed into a more pragmatic “can you prove it works?”
Where the research gets contentious, admits VanNieuwkuyk, is determining whether the people being surveyed really understand what the actual benefits and responsibilities involving self-driving cars will be. For the immediate future at least, we will not be chauffeured around, completely devoid of any responsibility, as many of those interested in self-driving cars seem to think.
Without the respondents having a comprehensive understanding of the limitations of autonomous automobiles, no one knows what the real interest will be, though VanNieuwkuyk admits it might be significantly less than noted in his company’s latest research.
And, of course, there remains the question of who will be liable for accidents involving self-driving cars. One thing’s for sure, automobile manufacturers are not about to take complete responsibility for any accidents caused by, or involving, their autonomous products.
But the most interesting issue regarding autonomous automobiles posed by VanNieuwkuyk — and why he is a global director and I but a lowly Motor Mouth — is whether it is even in the best interests of automobile manufacturers to produce self-driving cars. Yes, having a computer operate the controls certainly helps solve the increasingly thorny problem of driver distraction, allowing even increased connectivity of the automobile that consumers seem to desire. But what if automobiles really become, as some like Navigant Research are already predicting, truly autonomous and could be programmed to pick someone up at one location and deliver them somewhere else? Indeed, what if Breadwinner A (that’s me, politically correct to a fault, not saying husband) could drive the car to work in the morning and then simply send it home all by its lonesome so that Caregiver B can enjoy its autonomous wonders throughout the day? Why would anyone ever buy two costly and depreciating assets when one will suffice?
Methinks that there’s more to this driverless revolution than we’ve been led to believe. Perhaps VanNieuwkuyk will have a clearer view at next year’s conference.