.

Join the conversation about this story »

This year's circuit of consumer electronic shows and conferences has been dominated by talk of connected cars (those with a direct link to the internet rather than via smart-phones). Embedded connectivity, fourth generation telematics, killer apps and possible revenue streams are just some of the topics under discussion. But the strongest assurance of the future of the connected car is forthcoming EU legislation.

The European Commission plans to have a functioning EU-wide eCall service in place by the end of 2015. The service relies on every new car having an embedded SIM card, in order to convey location and vehicle data to emergency services in the event of an accident. The idea is that this will speed up response times and reduce fatalities. The legislation is firmly focused on safety but it is also likely to have ramifications for in-car entertainment services.

The line between the two is blurred. Broadly speaking there are nine or more functions that could in theory be performed by a connected car:

• Vehicle information: telling you when oil needs topping up or tyres need reinflating;
• Location information: not just satnavs, but also information on local eateries or hotels;
• Comfort: adjusting air conditioning and seats in response to changing conditions;
• Entertainment: playing music, or managing films for the children in the back;
• Communication: managing phone calls and voice-messaging;
• Security: locking down the car if it appears to have been stolen;
• Safety: warning of hazards ahead or communicating with other cars (leading to self-driving cars);
• More safety: calling emergency services after an accident;
• Yet more safety: shutting down the car and calling the police if you have had too much to drink.

These possibilities are driving some rapid market growth. GSMA, a trade body representing mobile operators, predicts that 20% of vehicles sold globally in 2015 will have embedded connectivity, and 50% will be connected in some fashion, the alternatives to embedding being the tethering or integration of a smart phone. By 2025, the consensus is that all cars will be seamlessly and ubiquitously connected, while older, non-connected cars will be considered 'dumb'.

Juniper Research, a technology consultancy, predicts that global revenues from consumer and commercial automotive telematics are forecast to reach nearly US$20bn by 2018. Yet demand is unlikely to be driven by customers' desire for entertainment, but by government initiatives to improve safety. Russia is already deploying its own equivalent to the EU regulations, in the form of ERA GLONASS. Harmonised with E-call, this will also use GPS to monitor cars and alert the emergency services if airbags are deployed or a collision detected. Russia may expand it to the Indian market in a joint venture. Brazil's CONTRAN 245 initiative will require all new cars to have a trackable anti-theft device, while the Chinese government is investing in multiple programmes. All of these developments make the car itself a smart device, with large implications for the insurance industry, data analytics and other streaming services.

The difficulty until now has been to combine regulatory requirements, carmaker solutions and products from the telecoms and software industry in ways that make sense to the end-consumer. For the time being, tethering solutions for smart-phones are still evolving, driven by interfaces such as Apple's CarPlay and Microsoft's Mirrorlink. Manufacturers are supplementing these with their own solutions, one example being Audi's development of a dual-Operating System infotainment system that doesn't privilege Apple over Android.

With each carmaker working on a variety of own-solutions and third-party collaborations, there is fierce positioning going on in the industry. Much of this is not even coming from the auto industry, with telecoms players poised to make inroads into territory traditionally belonging to carmakers. In July Vodafone, a UK telecoms company, declared its intention of becoming a global provider of connected car services when it acquired Cobra Automotive Technologies, an Italian telematics group listed on the Milan Stock Exchange.

At the grassroots, newcomers to the car sector include Rara, a UK-based global music-streaming service. Jumping on BMW's decision to include embedded SIM cards in all new cars since last year, ahead of the EU regulations, Rara offers the carmaker's customers a paid-for subscription service allowing them to stream music directly to the car, bypassing other devices. Another initiative from Everything Everywhere (EE), a UK-based mobile phone operator, involves the sale of a portable device that generates a 4G wi-fi hotspot in the car. Called Buzzard, it also requires a monthly subscription and represents another attempt to use car demand to generate new revenue streams.

Perhaps the biggest connected car announcement so far this year came from General Motors brand Chevrolet. It is launching 4G telecoms services across nine models of car, under the brand OnStar, indicating that such services will in the future apply to all levels of vehicle and not just premium brands. Others will be watching the company's experience with interest. It is still unclear exactly what functions consumers are willing to pay for in their connected cars, given they already pay monthly subscriptions for their smart-phones. What does seem certain is that regulation, with its demand for mandatory SIM cards, will pave the way, allowing carmakers and their rivals to develop complex collaborations. The only requirement is that, whatever they install, it has to be flexible enough to keep pace with new technologies around the corner.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Join the conversation about this story »

.

Join the conversation about this story »

One of the issues of self-driving vehicles is legal liability for death or injury in the event of an accident. If the car maker programs the car so the driver has no choice, is it likely the company could be sued over the car’s actions.

One way around this is to shift liability to the car owner by allowing them to determine a set of values or options in the event of an accident.

People are likely to want to have the option to choose how their vehicle behaves, both in an emergency and in general, so it seems the issue of adjustable ethics will become real as robotically controlled vehicles become more common.

Self-drive is already here

With self-driving vehicles already legal to drive on public roads in a growing number of US states, the trend is spreading around the world. The United Kingdom will allow these vehicles from January 2015.

Before there is widespread adoption, though, people will need to be comfortable with the idea of a computer being in full control of their vehicle. Much progress towards this has been made already. A growing number of cars, including mid-priced Fords, have an impressive range of accident-avoidance and driver-assist technologies like adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, lane-keeping and parking assist.

People who like driving for its own sake will probably not embrace the technology. But there are plenty of people who already love the convenience, just as they might also opt for automatic transmission over manual.

Are they safe?

After almost 500,000km of on-road trials in the US, Google’s test cars have not been in a single accident while under computer control.

You’ll be amazed by what you find out about the man in the driving seat.

Computers have faster reaction times and do not get tired, drunk or impatient. Nor are they given to road rage. But as accident-avoidance and driver-assist technologies become more sophisticated, some ethical issues are raising their heads.

The question of how a self-driven vehicle should react when faced with an accident where all options lead to varying numbers of deaths of people was raised earlier this month.

This is an adaptation of the “trolley problem” that ethicists use to explore the dilemma of sacrificing an innocent person to save multiple innocent people; pragmatically choosing the lesser of two evils.

An astute reader will point out that, under normal conditions, the car’s collision-avoidance system should have applied the brakes before it became a life-and-death situation. That is true most of the time, but with cars controlled by artificial intelligence (AI), we are dealing with unforeseen events for which no design currently exists.

Who is to blame for the deaths?

If car makers install a “do least harm” instruction and the car kills someone, they create legal liability for themselves. The car’s AI has decided that a person shall be sacrificed for the greater good.

Had the car’s AI not intervened, it’s still possible people would have died, but it would have been you that killed them, not the car maker.

Car makers will obviously want to manage their risk by allowing the user to choose a policy for how the car will behave in an emergency. The user gets to choose how ethically their vehicle will behave in an emergency.

The options are many. You could be:

• democratic and specify that everyone has equal value
• pragmatic, so certain categories of person should take precedence, as with the kids on the crossing, for example
• self-centered and specify that your life should be preserved above all
• materialistic and choose the action that involves the least property damage or legal liability.

While this is clearly a legal minefield, the car maker could argue that it should not be liable for damages that result from the user’s choices – though the maker could still be faulted for giving the user a choice in the first place.

Let’s say the car maker is successful in deflecting liability. In that case, the user becomes solely responsible whether or not they have a well-considered code of ethics that can deal with life-and-death situations.

People want choice

Code of ethics or not, in a recent survey it turns out that 44% of respondents believe they should have the option to choose how the car will behave in an emergency.

About 33% thought that government law-makers should decide. Only 12% thought the car maker should decide the ethical course of action.

It falls to the car makers then to create a code of ethical conduct for robotic cars. This may well be good enough, but if it is not, then government regulations can be introduced, including laws that limit a car maker’s liability in the same way that legal protection for vaccine makers was introduced because it is in the public interest that people be vaccinated.

In the end, are not the tools we use, including the computers that do things for us, just extensions of ourselves? If that is so, then we are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their use.

David Tuffley does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Join the conversation about this story »

New York may have its aggressive, horn-honking drivers but it is a bastion of tranquility and safety compared to Boston, home to the worst drivers of any U.S. big city, according to an insurance industry report.

"A Boston driver, on average, will get into a collision every 4.4 years," Kari Mather, a spokeswoman for insurer Allstate Corp, said on Tuesday.

The company's annual report, titled "Allstate America's Best Drivers Report," is based on client collision damage data in 2011 and 2012.

It found Boston ranked dead last among cities with more than 1 million residents in their metropolitan area. Next was Washington.

The large U.S. city that boasts the best drivers is Phoenix, where a driver, on average, will get into a collision every 9.5 years, Mather said. San Diego and Chicago ranked second and third among big cities.

The analysis was weighted to consider factors such as population density and precipitation, Mather said.

Allstate offers automobile insurance to drivers, who are required in most states to carry coverage for their vehicles in case of an accident.

Mather said the report's finding are not used to calculate driver costs, but to raise awareness.

"It's more about a dialogue of encouraging drivers to be safer on the road. It's a wakeup call to them," she said.

The full report included 200 cities. Boston ranked 199th, ahead of only Worcester, Massachusetts, an industrial city of 181,000 people 40 miles to the west.

Among other large cities, Chicago ranked 139th, New York City 155th, Houston 158th, Los Angeles 188th, San Francisco 190th, Philadelphia 192nd and Washington 198th.

(Reporting by Barbara Goldberg in New York; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

SEE ALSO: This Footage Of A Gunman's Mall Siege In Australia Shows Cops' Amazing Restraint

Join the conversation about this story »

Lyndon Johnson, who was born on August 27 1908, was remembered by close advisors and friends long after his 1973 death for a horrifying prank he played on unsuspecting guests at his Stonewall, Texas ranch. 

The prank involved Johnson's Amphicar, the only civilian amphibious car every mass produced, according to the National Park Service's website for the Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park. 3,878 Amphicar vehicles were built in in Germany during the 1960s in four different colors. Johnson chose Lagoon Blue. On land, the vehicle looked like any ordinary automobile, and the President offered to drive guests around his ranch.

Those leisurely rides created the opportunity for a clever prank that Johnson enjoyed playing on his passengers. It involved barrelling the vehicle down a hill into a lake and exclaiming to his passengers that the brakes had malfunctioned, while they had no idea the car was designed to float in water.

Joseph A. Califano, Jr., the president's special assistant for domestic affairs at the time, recalled his experience as a victim of his boss's prank:

The President, with [White House secretary] Vicky McCammon in the seat alongside him and me in the back, was now driving around in a small blue car with the top down. We reached a steep incline at the edge of the lake and the car started rolling rapidly toward the water. The President shouted, "The brakes don’t work! The brakes won’t hold! We’re going in! We’re going under!" The car splashed into the water. I started to get out. Just then the car leveled and I realized we were in a Amphicar. The President laughed. As we putted along the lake then (and throughout the evening), he teased me. "Vicky, did you see what Joe did? He didn’t give a damn about his President. He just wanted to save his own skin and get out of the car." Then he’d roar. 

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, John W. Gardner, one of the only Republican cabinet members during Johnson's presidency, was also reportedly a victim of this prank.

The Amphicar was known for its easy transition from land to water. "The process was simple,"Rebecca Onion wrote for Slate. "One: drive the car into the water. Two: engage the two propellers, located under the rear engine compartment. Three: Steer as usual — the wheels acted as stabilizers."

H/T mental_floss

SEE ALSO: These GIFs Show How Much American Politics Has Changed Since The 1900s

Join the conversation about this story »

While the idea of simply hopping into a car, pressing a button, and arriving at your destination sounds enticing, we're still far away from that type of simplicity.

Although Google's self-driving cars have successfully driven more than 700,000 miles, mistakes and new additions to maps and unmapped areas could potentially pose a problem, as MIT Technology Review points out. 

For example, MIT notes that if a self-driving car encountered a new traffic light that wasn't accounted for on a map, that car might not be able to react properly. The car would slow down or stop if its on-board sensors noticed any traffic or obstacles nearby, however, which would likely prevent accidents or injuries. 

That said, if the road is clear and the car doesn't "see" the new traffic light, this could result in tickets and traffic citations for the owner of the car if the vehicle happened to get caught running a red light. 

Google is making efforts towards eliminating these types of problems. Although Google's self-driving cars can't detect new trafflic lights that appear overnight, they can respond to stop signs that aren't on the map, according to MIT. Since we initially published this story, Google has reached out to MIT to clarify that its cars can identify almost all unmapped signs.  

Google also told Business Insider that new traffic lights are also less of an issue than unmapped traffic signs. While traffic signs are road-effective as soon as they're put up, there's usually a gap between when traffic lights are built and when they become fully functional. Google says it could take a month or more for a traffic light to become functional after its installed, which gives their cars plenty of time to register this information and report it to Google.

The company anticipates this issue of unmapped traffic lights will become less of a problem in the future. 

Even so, rolling out its self-driving car system nationwide could prove to be an enormous task for Google. So far, maps for Google's self-driving cars have only been designed to handle a few thousand miles of roadway, as MIT notes. Google would have to maintain and update millions of miles of roads across the country to truly make autonomous vehicles safe enough for everyday use.

That's not to say there isn't a future for driverless vehicles. Once Google works out the kinks, driverless cars could easily prevent accidents caused by drunk driving. They could also potentially serve as a more flexible travel option for the visually impaired. 

Still, there's no telling how long it will be until the technology is refined enough to become part of our everyday lives. 

Check out MIT for the full story >>

SEE ALSO: This Story About Larry Page In College Perfectly Describes Why He's The Right Person To Lead Google

Join the conversation about this story »

Inventions have been boosting economic growth and productivity since the dawn of man.

Unsurprisingly, it is the inventor who is often the early tester of those inventions. And some of those inventions pose deadly risks.

With the help of Wikipedia, we've compiled a short list of brilliant engineers, scientists, and old-fashioned daredevils who fell victim to their own ideas.

1. The cofounder of the Stanley Motor Carriage Company crashed his automobile into a woodpile.

Francis Edgar Stanley and his twin brother, Freelan Oscar Stanley, invented the Stanley Steamer automobile in 1896. 

In 1906, they broke the world record for the fastest mile — 28.2 seconds. That means that their car went 127 mph, or 205 kph.

In 1918, the two brothers sold their Stanley Motor business. Later that year, Francis was driving his car when he veered sharply, hoping to avoid an obstacle. The car crashed into a woodpile, and his car overturned.

Source: The Stanley Museum

2. The first hot air balloonist died while crossing the English Channel.

The "extremely theatrical" Jean-Françoise Pilâtre de Rozier volunteered for the first human hot air balloon flight in 1783 (along with Marquis d'Arlandes) because "there was no way" he "was going to let this honor go to an artisan." The flight propelled him into international stardom.

Two other men later gained notoriety for being the first to cross the English Channel by hot air balloon. Their flight was not without significant problems — and they nearly drowned.

Pilâtre de Rozier was envious of their stardom (and that he was no longer the center of attention) and created the Rozière balloon to solve the problems faced by the other men. But something mysterious went wrong during his attempt at crossing the English Channel, and he died during the flight.

Source: Ultimate History

3. Scientists working in a secret New Mexico laboratory called "Omega Site" received lethal doses of radiation from the core of a plutonium bomb.

In 1946, eight scientists including Louis Slotin (who previously worked on the Manhattan project) and S. Allan Kline were working on an "action that would bring into close proximity the two halves of a beryllium-coated sphere and convert the plutonium to a critical state."

Slotin and the team had performed this experiment over 24 times by that point, but this specific time a screwdriver that was keeping the two halves from touching slipped, causing a lethal burst of radiation. Slotin died in nine days.

Source: New York Times

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A record number of U.S. consumers are taking out loans to buy cars, especially those purchasing used vehicles, according to data released on Wednesday.

In the second quarter, 85 percent of new car purchases and 53.8 percent of used car purchases were financed, according to data from Experian Plc., an information provider.

That was up 0.5 percentage points and 0.9 percentage points, respectively from the same period in 2013.

Additionally, the size of auto loan amounts and monthly payments continued to rise, especially for used cars. Since the second quarter of 2013, the average used vehicle loan rose 1.9 percent to $18,258 and the average monthly payment on such vehicles rose 1.1 percent to $355, both all-time highs.

"More and more consumers, especially those that are credit challenged, are turning to the used vehicle market as a viable option to purchase their next car," said Melinda Zabritski, senior director of automotive finance for Experian, in a statement.

On Wednesday, automakers reported August sales data. Analysts are expecting the year's sales pace to remain well above 16 million new vehicles. Both Chrysler and Nissan saw new car sales move substantially higher in August.

Banks were the largest lenders to consumers buying used cars, financing 35.6 percent of all such purchases, or 0.8 percentage points less than the second quarter of last year.

In recent years banks have begun to focus more on the used car market as automakers' in-house financing arms came to dominate the new car market. Such "captive" finance companies made more than one out of every two new car loans in the second quarter, according to Experian.

Regulators have become more concerned with banks' willingness to lengthen terms on car loans, lend to borrowers with lower credit scores and give out loans that are larger than vehicles are worth.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has started investigating subprime auto loans that companies such as General Motors Co's auto financing arm and Santander Consumer Holdings USA Inc. have made and securitized since 2007.

But at least in the second quarter, the share of both new car and used car loans that went to borrowers with subprime credit scores declined, according to Experian.

"Lenders are still showing cautionary signs when lending to the subprime market and keeping their risk at manageable levels," Zabritski said.

In recent months, a variety of market observers have raised red flags about subprime auto lending. They've voiced concerns at a time when automakers selling vehicles in the U.S. has seen the annualized sales pace push steadily toward 17 million new cars and trucks. 

Wells Fargo & Co. remained the largest U.S. auto lender in the second quarter with a market share of 5.75 percent, down from 5.89 percent a year prior.

Capital One Financial Corp. surged past JPMorgan Chase & Co. to become the third largest U.S. auto lender after Ally Financial Inc. The McLean, Virginia-based bank's share of the used car market rose from 3.77 percent to 4.20 percent.

SEE ALSO: Chrysler And Nissan Sales Smash Expectations

Join the conversation about this story »

There hasn't been a tremendous amount of change in the auto industry in the past few decades, as far as brands go. Even the bankruptcies of General Motors and Ford in 2009 didn't lead to the demise of either of those companies.

The Chrysler bankruptcy, and Chrysler's subsequent takeover by Fiat, did of course pave the way for the Italian carmaker to return to the U.S. 

And Tesla has emerged as something of a major player, or potential major player.

You could argue that the advent of a stand-alone electric car company is big news, as is the return of the electric car itself as a viable competitor to the internal-combustion engine. And the entire industry went through an identity crisis during the Great Recession, when sales plunged.

But beyond that, the auto brand universe has been fairly stable in the U.S. The major brands are GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda. Hyundai and Kia have been in the picture for a while, as has Volkswagen. A cluster of minor brands, like Subaru and Mazda, along with luxury marques including BMW, Mercedes, and Audi round out the mix.

This contrasts with the long, long history of the auto industry in America. Brands have risen and fallen. Changed hands. Left the country and returned. It's been anything but calm.

The folks at Firestone put together this interactive graphic that does a neat job of capturing this: 

SEE ALSO: Chrysler Demolished Expectations With Its August Sales — Here's How They Did It

SEE ALSO: US Auto Sales Are Just Crushing It

Join the conversation about this story »

Automakers reported August sales on Wednesday and their numbers were fantastic. The industry remains on pace to sell 17 million or more new cars and trucks in the U.S. in 2014. 

This is extremely impressive when you consider that sales collapsed during the financial crisis to a 10-million annual level.

Industry observers and analysts were concerned that the sales might settle into a 14-to-15 million yearly range, which would have been bad news for some of the smaller players, who would have struggled to achieve meaningful market share.

It would have been rough for the Big Boys, too, as they battled over tiny market-share gains and fought to hang on to customers. 

So, boffo U.S. auto sales are helping everyone to succeed. But there's another big story in the numbers.

Remember SUVs? We left them for dead five years ago. Lousy gas mileage, at a time when gas prices were rising, sent buyers in search of smaller, more fuel-efficient rides. 

The federal government also mandated better overall fuel economy for the automakers' fleets, which gave car companies a reason to build a lot of really good small vehicles.

And then there were some more ... conceptual developments. 

SUVs — especially BIG SUVs — just got a bad name. You wanted to be seen in a modest Prius, not a gigantic Suburban.

What a difference a few years makes. SUVs are now pushing new-vehicle sales back to levels not seen since the early 2000s. Compact SUVs, such as Honda's CRV and Ford's Escape, are extremely popular. But so are full-size SUVs. GM's August sales were tepid overall, but, as USA Today reported, its Cadillac division "couldn't keep the hulking Escalade [luxury SUV] in stock."

Pickup trucks are also helping to keep the party going. But in the U.S., Ford, GM, and Chrysler are always going to be able to sell a lot of pickups. Which is good. Pickups are profitable to build and sell.

And so are SUVs. When SUVs are selling, everybody starts to make money.

The big difference between the pickup and SUV markets is that a certain level of full-size pickup sales can be assumed, simply because owners wear out F-150s and Silverados faster than, say, Corollas and Accords. SUV sales, by contrast, are sensitive to gas prices and consumer sentiment.

Gas prices aren't currently low, but they are stable. Americans also like SUVs — minivans might be better family haulers, but they come with that dreaded minivan stigma. And SUVs are far less truck-like than they were 10 years ago; the automakers have reengineered them to look more like modern-day station wagons and drive more like cars (and invented a whole new SUV-esque genre, the "Crossover").

Finally, SUVs offer versatility: You can fill them with kids, friends, pets, and gear — and if road or weather conditions are poor, well ... SUVs do have off-roading in their DNA.

Is the SUV revival sustainable? Only time will tell. But for now, the automakers are giving thanks that the sport utility vehicle wasn't left for dead.

SEE ALSO: US Auto Sales Are Just Crushing It

Join the conversation about this story »

It’s long been hailed by Uber CEO Travis Kalanick that their on-demand transportation service will eventually replace car ownership entirely. In fact, he believes one day all the Uber cars on the road may be driving themselves. As technology and competition drive down the costs of peer-to-peer ride-sharing, there’s no denying that we as consumers win. So what does this mean for the classic American dream: house, car and children? I’m here to tell you, one of these prizes might change.

About two years ago I sold my 2000 Lexus GS 300 and replaced it with a sleek single-speed Pure Fix commuter bike. Two years later, I still bike to work every morning. And for anything over 3–5 miles, or when I’m just not feeling up for the workout, I call an Uber. I love the safety and convenience of Uber, the overall quality of their cars, and especially as a young black male, the peace of mind that I’ll never again have to deal with the police.

Before I sold my car I did some calculations to validate my suspicion that owning a car was a huge and unnecessary financial liability. Was it really feasible to ditch the DMV and rely strictly on Uber? After all, I lived in Los Angeles, the most sprawled-out city in the country—a city built on the backbone of the internal combustion engine. This would require some Googling and a little math.

The costs of annual car ownership

According to AAA, the average cost of purely owning and driving a mid-sized sedan in the US is $8,876 as of 2014, broken into six categories below:

• Payments / depreciation ($4,260)
• Fuel costs ($2,130)
• Interest ($976)
• Insurance ($887)
• Maintenance and repairs ($355)
• Registration and taxes ($355)

Small sedans
Typical model: Chevrolet Cruze, Ford Focus or Honda Civic
Cost per mile for gas, maintenance and tires: $0.16
Total cost per year (assuming 15,000 miles driven a year): $6,957

Medium sedans
Typical model: Ford Fusion, Honda Accord or Toyota Camry
Cost per mile for gas, maintenance and tires: $0.19
Total cost per year (assuming 15,000 miles driven a year): $8,839

Minivans
Typical model: Dodge Grand Caravan, Honda Odyssey or Kia Sedona
Cost per mile for gas, maintenance and tires: $0.21
Total cost per year (assuming 15,000 miles driven a year): $9,753

Large sedans
Typical model: Chrysler 300, Ford Taurus or Nissan Maxima
Cost per mile for gas, maintenance and tires: $0.21
Total cost per year (assuming 15,000 miles driven a year): $10,831

Large SUV’s
Typical model: Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee or Nissan Pathfinder
Cost per mile for gas, maintenance and tires: $0.23
Total cost per year (assuming 15,000 miles driven a year): $11,039

Luxury sedans and SUV’s
Typical model: Porsche Cayenne, Jaguar XK, GMC Sierra or Infiniti QX56
Cost per mile for gas, maintenance and tires: $0.31
Total cost per year (assuming 15,000 miles driven a year): $15,250

Now we have to add additional costs for speeding and traffic tickets. The National Motorists Association (NMA) suggests that Americans could spend up to $15 billion each year on traffic tickets, or 50 million traffic tickets. This comes out to about one $75 ticket per year, per American. The NMA also estimates that Americans will get one speeding ticket every six years that will lead to increased insurance surcharges costing around $300 per year amortized over your lifetime. We already accounted for insurance costs in the calculation above, so we won’t add this twice.

• Traffic tickets ($75)

Now for parking. According to ABC, the average American spends $1,300 a year on parking costs, higher than insurance or maintenance.

• Parking ($1,300)

The last cost is probably the one Americans ignore the most, and that’s the value of your time. Every hour spent behind the wheel with your attention on the road is time you could be spending exchanging emails from your smartphone, preparing notes for a meeting, reading news or researching a new topic. This is simply time of lost productivity. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Average Hourly Earnings Rate is $24.45 per hour, with the highest being utility services at $35.45 and the lowest being leisure and hospitality at $13.86. As of 2011, the national average one-way daily commute was 25.5 minutes, or 51 minutes per day, 4.25 hours per week, 17 hours per month, and 204 hours per year. Multiply that by the average earnings rate and we can see that the average American loses out on $4,987 earnings per year due to lost productivity in their daily commute. Let’s assume in the alternative option (Uber) the user is productive 50% of the trip, so we will discount the opportunity cost to $2,493 per year.

• Opportunity cost ($2,493)

If we add all these costs up, we can see the average costs of owning a motor vehicle in the United States is around $12,744 per year ($1,062 per month). This falls in line with Consumer Reports who estimated median annual car costs to be $9,100 (not accounting for opportunity cost) — with small cars and Priuses around $5,000 and luxury cars and SUV’s around $16,000.

The costs of annual Uber usage

Now it’s time to grab your phone, drop a pin, and let Uber take over. Keep in mind there are a slew of other ride-sharing companies out there, but we’re using Uber for simplistic sake and because there’s more data out there on this specific company. Uber, like many of its competitors, offer a unique combination of reliability, convenience and luxury at 20–30 percent the price of a cab. Let’s assume you take them everywhere (school, work or even the club). But first, we have set a few assumptions:

• User lives in one of the 64 cities where Uber is available
• User only uses UberX (~20% cheaper than taxi cabs or Uber Black)
• User uses no other mode of transportation other than UberX
• User has flexibility in schedule to avoid surge pricing
• User is achieving 50% of full working productivity during the ride
• User is indifferent about 5-10 minute wait time for UberX vehicle

The base fare of Uber in Los Angeles is $0.80, plus $0.21 per minute and $1.10 per mile, as seen on their rate chart:

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the average American driver logs 13,476 miles per year on their cars, with an “average commute distance” of 25.2 miles. If you’re curious, 13,000 miles is about two cross-country trips from from New York City to Los Angeles and back. Lastly, the US Census Bureau estimatesan “average commute time” of 25.5 minutes (with the highest being Chicago at 31.9 minutes and the lowest being Columbus, OH at 21.8 minutes). Without much more data here, we will have to assume average commute time to work is comparable to commute times to all other destinations (grocery store, bars, clubs, doctors office, friend’s houses, etc).

Now we know that the average American takes about 534 trips per year in their car, or 1.47 per day (2.05 per weekday). They will spend 13,566 minutes in their cars commuting places throughout the year, or 37.1 minutes per day (52 minutes per weekday). These numbers sound pretty reasonable.

At a rate of $1.10 per mile, $0.21 per minute and $0.80 per trip, the average American will fork up $427 to Uber in base fare fees (534 * .80), $14,823 in mileage fees (13,476 * 1.1) and $2,880 in time fees (534 * 25.5 * .21).

• Base fare fees ($427)
• Mileage fees ($14,823)
• Time fees ($2,863)

This brings total costs to $18,115 per year ($1,509 per month) if you used UberX to drive everywhere. Unfortunately, even without car payments and depreciation, fuel costs, interest, insurance, maintenance and repairs, registration and taxes, parking fees, speeding tickets and opportunity costs, Uber is still slightly more expensive for the average American who drives 13,476 miles per year. In this case, it would be cheaper to own and drive the medium-sized sedan.

The mileage crossover point

Averages are great, but the real point is for everyone to do this calculation on their own, using a model similar to what we created. I have condensed both models to more digestible forms below:

costs_ownership_year =

costs_payments_year + costs_fuel_year + costs_interest_year + costs_insurance_year + costs_repairs_year + costs_taxes_year + costs_parking_year + costs_tickets_year + costs_opportunity_year

costs_uber_year =

(miles_year / average_commute_distance * .80) + (miles_year * 1.10) + (miles_year / average_commute_distance * average_commute_time * 0.21)

Using the model we have we can manipulate some of the variables to come up with a crossover point — in this case 9,481 miles — where the costs of owning a car and the costs of using UberX are exactly the same. Assuming you have a medium-sized sedan that costs you $12,744 a year to own and maintain, and you drive 9,481 miles per year, then you should be indifferent about keeping your car.

Example #1 (Ownership is cheaper)
Annual mileage: 13,476 miles
Average commute distance: 25.2 miles
Average commute time: 25 minutes
Cost of ownership: $12,744
Cost of UberX: $18,115.06

Example #2 (Equal)
Annual mileage: 9,481 miles
Average commute distance: 25.2 miles
Average commute time: 25 minutes
Cost of ownership: $12,744
Cost of UberX: $12,744

Example #3 (Uber is cheaper)
Annual mileage: 5,000 miles
Average commute distance: 25.2 miles
Average commute time: 25 minutes
Cost of ownership: $12,744
Cost of UberX: $6,721

Conclusion

So there you have it… for the average American who drives 13,476 miles per year, owning a motor vehicle will cost them $12,744 per year to maintain, and the cost of taking UberX everywhere will cost them $18,115 per year.

However, Americans who drive less than 9,481 miles in a year should seriously consider ditching their car, because UberX will be cheaper.

Whether it’s UberX, UberPool, Lyft, LyftLine or Sidecar, the factors that will determine whether these services are actually cheaper really come down to how many miles you drive in a year. If your metrics differ substantially from mine, I encourage you to enter your own variables into the model and come up with your own conclusions.

*** Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with Uber ***

SEE ALSO: Booming Electric Car Sales Have Become A Problem In Norway

Join the conversation about this story »

The Mazda Miata is turning 25.

The peppy little roadster first took to the road in 1989 and has been in uninterrupted production ever since. Mazda just pulled the cover off the latest version for the 2016 model — and created a special 25th anniversary model for 2015.

That kind of staying power puts it in the same league as the Chevy Corvette, the Ford Mustang, and the Porsche 911.

But here's the thing: From the get-go, the Miata has been tagged, unfairly or not, as a "chick car."

And for over two decades, Mazda has been sensitive to this.

As a result, the Miata — now called the MX-5, a tweak to the name that in itself is evidence of Mazda's sensitivity to the "chickness" of the vehicle — has gotten bigger and burlier over the years.

The first generation Miata weighed just over 2,000 pounds. The 2015 model tips the scales at just over 3,000 2,500 pounds!

The first-gen Miata had a 1.6-liter engine that made 115 horsepower, which is just nothing, really. The 2015 model has a 2.0-liter engine that generates 167 horsepower, which still isn't that much, but it's pushing around an additional 500 pounds! [Thanks to @MattHardigree for pointing our my error about the weight here!]

Here's what it looked like in the beginning, in British racing green, evoking its important genetic connection to the convertible English roadsters that inspired the Miata's revival of top-down motoring: And here's what it looks like now:

In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal that I owned a 1997 Miata — flip-up headlights and hand-crank windows — for a few years in Southern California and have never really been able to fully accept the later generations. If you were a fan of British (and Italian) roadsters and just wanted to see the genre perfected, as the Miata did — the top didn't leak, the engine always started, the lights always worked, the brakes actually stopped the car — then there was no good reason to change anything about the car.

Admittedly, the car was adorable and hardly a zero-to-60 beast, and it came along at a time when big SUVs were very popular on America's roads. 

But if it was a chick car — and there's really no point in denying that it kind of was — then the question Mazda should have asked itself wasn't "How can we change that?" but "Should everyone who likes to drive be driving a chick car?" Here's the thing: While you can buy any of a number of high-horsepower, big-engine sports cars — and now even sport sedans and sport SUVs — the speed limit in the U.S. is in most places is still well under 100 mph, and besides, the last time I spotted a Ferrari, it was sitting behind me in bumper-to-bumper traffic, using a minuscule percentage of its 500-plus horsepower.

My '97 Miata, meanwhile, was an unmitigated joy at 40 mph. In fact, there had never been a car that was as much fun at 40 mph as the first-gen Miata. The later generations are also fun at 40, but the earlier models had the Shock Of The New in ways that the later ones don't. You could be tooling along with the top up and with a simple twist of the hand and flick of the wrist, the top was down and the sun and wind were streaming in and all was right with the world. 

Additionally, 2,000 pounds plus a quick-shifting five-speed manual plus rear-wheel drive and a perfect 50-50 balance meant that 40 mph could easily feel like 100. There's a lot to be said for a car that feels fast when it's actually going slow. 

And just for the record, it wasn't impossible to push the first-gen Miata in the general direction of speed. You just had to redline the engine for every shift. That's right: To take that little motor to its limits, you had to actually use the tachometer, an instrument that's been relegated to dashboard decoration on almost all cars.My technique was to rev it into the redline and then launch out of the upshifts by quickly getting right back on the throttle and starting all over again, five times in a row. I'd do this on the freeway heading north and west of L.A., then jump off on a canyon road and wind my way down to Highway 1 and cruise back to Santa Monica with the Pacific Ocean off my right shoulder.This was driving as recreation. This was driving as automotive meditation. This was roadstering, in its purest form.

You can do this with newer Miatas — I mean, MX-5s— but it just isn't the same with all that extra car wrapped around you. The sturdier stance might make you feel more, you know, manly. But the bottom line is that you aren't having as much fun and you aren't becoming one with the road.

This was obvious when the first-gen gave way to the second-gen, as Vicki Butler-Henderson capably demonstrated on the British motoring show "Fifth Gear":

Richard Hammond did the same thing on the better-known "Top Gear" and came to slightly different conclusions:

The flip-up headlights went away, the two-seater welcomed a thicker and more sculpted body style, more distracting stuff entered the cockpit, and the Miata began its steady march away from chick-car-ness. But it didn't make any difference in the end because the MX-5 — the fatter and more powerful edition —is still derided as a chick car, a girlie ride, a dollywagon. 

A great example of fixing something that wasn't only not broken — it was practically perfect.

OK, so Mazda had, and still has, perfectly good reasons for upgrading and enhancing the MX-5. Reasons related to safety and the overall auto market. Civics and Accords and Corollas and Camrys have all also gotten bigger as they've gotten safer and, ironically, sleeker: And let's not forget that the Miata is still with us. And it hasn't traveled too terribly far from its roots.

I'm delighted it's still around. It deserves to celebrate a very happy birthday. If I wanted to buy a sports car right now, I wouldn't hesitate to buy an MX-5. And at about $23,000, it still wouldn't come close to breaking the bank (although the cost-to-thrills ratio with my '97, picked up for $6,000, would be hard to beat).

But I still think Mazda messed with perfection, at least partially because the chick-car label came along. To their credit, the 2016 MX-5 is a bit of a throwback to the original: lighter and, to my eye, more like a small, sharp knife with which to carve up curvy roads.So maybe the carmaker has finally stopped worrying and learned to love what is for a lot of folks the true ultimate driving machine.

And a total chick car.

SEE ALSO: 9 Bargain Convertibles You Can Buy Right Now

Join the conversation about this story »

Since Henry Ford turned it into a mass-market product a century ago, the car has delivered many benefits. It has boosted economic growth, increased social mobility and given people a lot of fun. No wonder mankind has taken to the vehicle with such enthusiasm that there are now a billion automobiles on the world's roads.

But the car has also brought many problems. It pollutes the air, creates congestion and kills people. An astonishing 1.24m people die, and as many as 50m are hurt, in road accidents each year. Drivers and passengers waste around 90 billion hours in traffic jams each year. In some car-choked cities as much as a third of the petrol used is burned by people looking for a space to park.

Fortunately, an emerging technology promises to make motoring safer, less polluting and less prone to hold-ups (see "The connected car: Smartphones on wheels"). "Connected cars"--which may eventually evolve into driverless cars but for the foreseeable future will still have a human at the wheel--can communicate wirelessly with each other and with traffic-management systems, avoid pedestrians and other vehicles and find open parking spots.

Get Smart

Some parts of the transformation are already in place. Many new cars are already being fitted with equipment that lets them maintain their distance and stay in a motorway lane automatically at a range of speeds, and recognise a parking space and slot into it. They are also getting mobile-telecoms connections: soon, all new cars in Europe will have to be able to alert the emergency services if their on-board sensors detect a crash. Singapore has led the way with using variable tolls to smooth traffic flows during rush-hours; Britain is pioneering "smart motorways", whose speed limits vary constantly to achieve a similar effect. Combined, these innovations could create a much more efficient system in which cars and their drivers are constantly alerted to hazards and routed around blockages, traffic always flows at the optimum speed and vehicles can join up into "platoons" on the motorways, travelling closer together, yet with less risk of crashing.

Just as regulation has helped increase fuel efficiency, cut exhaust fumes and introduce anti-skid equipment, so government involvement is needed to get the connected car on the road. It is beginning to happen. Earlier this year, Europe's standards-setting agencies agreed a common set of protocols for cars and traffic infrastructure to communicate. Others should follow. Governments should then set firm deadlines for all new cars to be fully connected and capable of platooning, and a date for existing cars to be retrofitted with a basic locator beacon and the ability to receive hazard warnings.

If cars are to connect, new infrastructure will have to be built. Roads and parking spaces will need sensors to monitor them; motorways will need dedicated lanes for platooning. But this will not necessarily be expensive. Upgrading traffic signals so they can be controlled remotely by a central traffic-management system is a lot cheaper than building new roads.

The sooner these changes are made, and cars are plugged into a smart traffic grid, the quicker Singaporean variable pricing--for parking as well as road use--can become the norm. Motorists will then have the incentive, as well as the ability, to avoid the busiest places at the busiest times, and the dreadful toll that roads take in human lives should start falling.

In the past, more people driving meant more roads, more jams, more death and more fumes. In future, the connected car could offer mankind the pleasures of the road with rather less of the pain.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Join the conversation about this story »

US electric car maker Tesla is developing technology that could see vehicles run on "full auto pilot" in as little as five or six years, according to its chief executive Elon Musk.

The colourful entrepreneur said his firm was stepping on the accelerator in the race against rivals such as Google and Volvo to create a driverless car, which could revolutionise the road by drastically cutting mortality rates.

"The overall system and software will be programmed by Tesla, but we will certainly use sensors and subcomponents from many companies," Musk told reporters in Tokyo Monday.

"I think in the long term, all Tesla cars will have auto-pilot capability," added Tesla's 43-year-old head.

There are no self-driving cars on the market yet, but several automakers have been working on autonomous or semi-autonomous features, such as self parking, which are seen as a major advance for the auto sector.

Musk's comments suggest that the arrival of self-driving cars could be closer than previously thought -- a January report by the research firm IHS said they could start hitting highways by 2025 and number as many as 35 million globally by 2035.

On Monday, Musk also said electric car maker Tesla hopes to sign a new battery supply with Toyota in the next few years, as an existing programme comes to an end.

Musk was in Tokyo to announce the release of Tesla's Internet-connected Model S sedan in Japan.

The luxury electric car costs 8.23 million yen ($77,000) and comes equipped with batteries made by Panasonic.

The collaboration between Tesla and the Japanese giant on the Model S precedes the planned joint construction of the world's largest lithium-ion battery plant in the US state of Nevada.

Tesla will run operations at the $5.0 billion "gigafactory" while Panasonic will make battery cells destined for the plant and invest in equipment and machinery.

The factory will employ 6,500 workers directly and another 16,000 indirectly, Tesla said.

The electric car market in Japan, as in other countries, has been growing slowly, hindered by high prices and a lack of locations for drivers to charge vehicle batteries.

Join the conversation about this story »

At the International Manufacturing Technology Show in Chicago, Local Motors 3D printed a plastic car called the Strati in front of thousands of attendees.

Local Motors took the chassis, seats, door panels, and thousands of other components, and 3D printed all those parts into just one piece. The first phase of the process, completed on Tuesday, took just 44 hours. 

"A 3D printed car like ours will only have dozens of components," Local Motors engineer James Earle tells Business Insider. In the near future, he says, it could cost only about $7,000 to manufacture, perhaps the start of what will become a niche market for customized cars.

"You can make a vehicle for yourself that's basically a one-0ff, do the entire design," he says. "You could create custom-fit seats that conform to your shape, things like that, that you couldn't do with cars now."

Produced by Will Wei.

GAME CHANGERS: Check out more in this series

Join the conversation about this story »

Jaguar introduced its new XE sedan in a way only the folks from Coventry, England could.

On a stage at London's Earl's Court Exhibition Center, the company presented its newest sedan in a grand, two hour-long musical extravaganza that chronicled the company's history through the eyes of a young car designer.

But when you look past the glitz and glamour of the event, it becomes clear that Jaguar realizes very well that its fortunes for the next decade or two hinge on the success of the XE.

While the stunning F-Type reaffirmed Jag as an aspirational brand, the XE is the car that has the potential to fill the company's coffers in a way its other models can't. Although the XF and XJ are great cars, these high-priced, very luxurious rides simply do not generate enough sales volume for Jaguar to notch profits like BMW or Mercedes.

Much as Tesla's hopes hinge on its upcoming mass market Model III, Jaguar needs the XE to succeed for it gain a more solid financial footing. 

For the first time since the company discontinued the X-Type in 2009, it has a car to compete in the cutthroat small executive sedan market. Although the X-Type sold reasonably well, the Ford-based 4-door wasn't able to match up against industry leaders, such as the Audi A4, BMW 3-Series, and Mercedes C-Class.

The American-designed X-type was saddled with poor reliability, an aging Ford chassis, and a look so odd that even the deft skills of Jaguar designer Ian Callum weren't much help.

The XE, on the other hand, is a very different beast. Designed from scratch by Callum's award-winning design team, the XE exuded Jaguar-ness: Power and presence brim beneath its sleek exterior. 

"Our mission was to create an exciting and dynamic design clearly reflecting the XE positioning as a serious driver’s car," said Callum.

"The cab-rearward proportions and tight packaging achieve that and give the XE the appearance of movement even when it’s standing still. It bears a strong family resemblance to the F-TYPE and will stand apart in the crowd."Looks aside, the performance is there as well. Power for the newest Cat from Coventry is supplied by Jaguar's stellar 3-liter supercharged V6, and engine that's shared with the F-Type sports car. Producing 340hp, the baby Jag will be able to sprint from 0-60 in a scant 4.9 seconds. In addition to the engine, the XE will also share the smooth-shifting ZF 8-speed gearbox with its siblings. 

The XE's stylish cabin will feature soft-touch leather materials and brushed metallic trim. The car will also mark the debut of Jaguar's new InControl infotainment system,centered around an impressive 8-inch capacitive touchscreen. Jaguar claims that InControl will allow navigation maps to be more user-friendly, with tablet-like pinch-to-zoom functionality. 

The XE will also be chock full of electronic goodies, such as adaptive cruise control, traffic sign recognition and even a new laser heads-up-display.

While the XE launches worldwide in 2015, North American customers will have to wait until 2016 to get their hands on Jaguar's latest offering. 

Until then, take a look at this awesome TestDriven video that shows the XE's action packed journey from the factory to its debut in London. 

SEE ALSO: Mercedes-AMG's Sleek New Sports Car Is An Impressive High-Tech Throwback

Join the conversation about this story »

Crumbling infrastructure alert!

A new report from TRIP, a Washington, D.C., transportation research group, finds that Los Angeles motorists are each spending an extra $2,458 per year due to poor roads and bridges.

And that's just the City of Angels.

"Roads and bridges that are deficient, congested or lack desirable safety features cost California motorists
a total of $44 billion statewide annually," the report concludes.

The report's authors are unflinching in their recommendations:

With a current unemployment rate of 7.4 percent and with the state’s population continuing to grow, California must improve its system of roads, highways and bridges to foster economic growth and keep businesses in the state. In addition to economic growth, transportation improvements are needed to ensure safe, reliable mobility and quality of life for all Californians. Meeting California’s need to modernize and maintain its system of roads, highways and bridges will require a significant boost in local, state and federal funding.

The situation with California's roads is especially grim. TRIP breaks it down:

•Thirty-four percent of California’s major roads and highways have pavements in poor condition, while an additional 41 percent of the state’s major roads are rated in mediocre or fair condition and the remaining 25 percent are rated in in good condition.

•Roads rated in poor condition may show signs of deterioration, including rutting, cracks and potholes. In some cases, poor roads can be resurfaced, but often are too deteriorated and must be reconstructed.

•Driving on rough roads costs all California motorists a total of $17 billion annually in extra [vehicle operating costs]. Costs include accelerated vehicle depreciation, additional repair costs, and increased fuel consumption and tire wear.In additional to flat tires from potholes, poor road conditions are also costing motorists in the Golden State time. 

Los Angeles and San Francisco-area residents are no strangers to traffic, but they probably won't be happy to learn that drivers in and around both cities are losing 61 hours a year to congestion. That's more than two days.

California is carland, but I can identify with whatever astonishment the people who live and drive in the state are experiencing, given TRIP's findings. I lived there for a decade and saw firsthand a lot of the decay, and suffered through the traffic delays on a regular basis. 

In a state whose economy is bigger than most countries, this is a major challenge.

Join the conversation about this story »

Want a brand-new car for less than $10,000?

You won't be able to get one in the U.S. — not since Nissan raised the price on its bare-bones Versa a few years back. But you can go to Europe.

And buy a Dacia Logan.

According to Bloomberg's Mathieu Rosemain and Andra Timu, "Today, the cheapest Logan starts at 7,700 euros, and the lineup has been extended to five main models." 

At current exchange rates, that means that Logan comes in at just under 10 grand.

The reporters point out that Dacia has become a post-communist-era success story, even as other Iron Curtain brands have faded. Romanians are proud to build he cheap little car.

Renault owns Dacia, and Renault and Nissan have a global alliance, so it shouldn't be too surprising that the producers of what was the cheapest car in the U.S. are responsible for the cheapest car in Europe.

SEE ALSO: Nissan Just Revolutionized The Rearview Mirror

Join the conversation about this story »

Join the conversation about this story »