De-motorisation
Guest writer, LILY, foresees that the car industry is coming full circle very soon, and change is imminent. Caring for my beloved...
https://automology.blogspot.com/2013/11/de-motorisation_18.html
Guest writer, LILY, foresees that the car industry is coming full circle very soon, and change is imminent.
Caring for my beloved elderly mother has been an honour. This process has helped me to realise one natural law - everything comes full circle. When a person is born, he is a baby in diapers with childlike behaviour during the early years; the process of growing and ageing brings the person back to the starting point of childlike behavior during old age (although not every elderly person needs diapers). In agriculture, the trend evolved from natural fertiliser to chemical fertiliser, and now the emphasis is back to the former with a modernised term called ‘organic’.
From
the first day that the car was invented, and then undergoing the
development stage and reaching the peak of technology application in the
car industry, would there be a day that people start to realise that
cars are too disruptive, hence place less importance on it? I would
define a situation when cars are found less important, leading to less
car ownerships, as ‘de-motorisation’.
There
might come a time that de-motorisation will happen after a long
dependence on personal cars. The car industry ecology has been trying to
balance itself without us realising, amidst the complications of
infrastructures, environmental issues, natural resources depletion and
the transformation of automakers’ business models. When there is an
excess in the system, it will need to be
adjusted. Take motorcycles in China as an example. The growing
purchasing power in China has seen motorcycles replacing bicycles,
especially in the bigger cities. The overcrowding of motorcycles on the
roads has become disruptive and a threat. One of the greatest challenges
between 1990 to 2000 was the increasing rate of motorcycle robberies
and snatch thieves, which allowed criminals to act fast and escape fast. Subsequently, motorcycles were banned in Guangzhou, Dongguan, Zuhai,
Shenzhen and Hangzhou, and with very strict restrictions in Shanghai and
Beijing. This is an example of technology becoming too destructive that
something else has to be done to achieve new balance in the system.
Singapore
is another country with many rules and regulations on car ownership
(read also Malaysian vs Singapore: Who’s Worse Off? and Forget about Owning a Car Already). We can grasp the whole idea of how
de-motorisation is important to Singapore, to keep the system away from
potential hazards due to over-motorisation, like physical environment
destruction and geographical space constraint.
Both
examples above are de-motorisation triggered by the environment of
over-motorisation. From the perspective of natural behavior study, will
there be a time when humans start realising that a car is not that
important to them, but what they need is ‘transport’ and, therefore,
they will then not desire owning a car? If that becomes a reality,
efficient public transport will have to take up an important role in
human mobility or something else has to present a much more favourable
alternative to the public.
The
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) has published a
market research conducted between 2008 and 2010 concerning youth
interest in cars, in industrial countries - they are the future group of
customers geared with purchasing power to buy cars. University students
in Japan have been ‘losing interest’ in cars; in Germany, the same age
group has less interest in premium car brands and, very likely, this
trend will continue on. Come to the country with the current world top
ranking car production – China. Its youth are interested in premium car
brands but the research forecasts that the trend will wane in the future.
|
Creative
business entrepreneurs start to bridge the gap between motorisation and
de-motorisation. There are intermediaries such as rent-a-car
businesses which began as a solution for visitors, by allowing customers
the use of a car during short term stays or visits in foreign
locations without owning one. These businesses have begun to extend their coverage into a
new territory; they target not only the visitors but also residents by offering an option to not ‘de-invest’ into a car (the
moment you get your car, it starts to devalue; therefore, I use the term
‘de-invest’) with just 4 simple, convenient steps, which is 'join', 'reserve', 'unlock' and 'drive'.
Zipcar started their business operating in a few big US cities, to make it possible for residents to not own a car, yet be able to drive one. You do not need to carpool, but you can do car-share now. Zipcar leverages on RFID technology in a little card to enable members to book their chosen cars for as many hours as they wish. The chosen car is unlocked with the card and when time is up, the driver just needs to park the car back in its original, designated parking spot. Members can choose from a variety of more than 30 brands, including BMW, Audi, Mini and more. It is a worry-free experience as members can opt for insurance coverage. The car is embedded with a ‘kill’ function to prevent theft as well.
Car
sharing is not a new concept. In fact, it started as early as 1960s in
Amsterdam, based on a similar operating system with a much more backward
technology. Switzerland launched a slightly more modern car sharing
programme in 1987, Germany in 1988 and followed by Quebec, Canada.
However, the first successful enterprise was in Portland, US back in
1998.
Susan
Shaheen from the University of California, Berkeley indicated that in
July 2012, there were 26 car sharing programmes in the US with 806 332
members sharing 12,634 vehicles. In Canada, there were 19 car sharing
companies which involved 101,502 members with 3,143 vehicles. In October
2012, there were 27 countries in the world having such car sharing
operations, which involved approximately 1,788,000 members with 43,550
cars, excluding some projects still in the planning stages.
Let’s
take the US statistics for our analysis: 806 332 members using 12,634
cars, which equals to 63 drivers to 1 car. Essentially, this means that
we do not require 806,332 units of car, and that saves so much natural
resources and reduces disposal problems. Assuming that 1 car releases
7,000kg of carbon monoxide a year, which contributes to global warming,
and that each driver would use the car to its fullest capacity, we would
have eliminated 5,555,886,000kg of carbon monoxide in a year by having
only 12 634 units of car instead of 806,332! Will this situation reduce
the revenue and profits of car companies? To me, it may change the
structure and source of their income, but it may not reduce their
profit. Car companies will then focus more on aftermarket services
because the cars need to be properly maintained due to extensive usage.
The countries will not experience reduction of GDP as well because the
manufacturing output will surely be replaced by the output from the car
sharing industries as well as more activities in the auto aftermarket
industry.
The
same concept of car sharing existed then and now, but technology has
made a positive difference in such programmes, including the speed of
news diffusion on its benefits and availability. Perhaps soon, more
cities will adopt this concept and embark on the way to de-motorisation.
William
Clay Ford Jr, the Chairperson of Ford Motor Company Ltd, said it right:
“If you live in a city, you don’t need a car…The ‘car of the future’
will be shared.”
image: artnotoil.org.uk |