The cost argument seems rather weak to me. It doesn't need to match on price, it needs to be lower, because less service is provided.

In the UK, a country with very high fuel taxation, cars are rarely the cheapest option when all costs are accounted for unless you have a particularly odd commute.

We also have small cities that generally lend themselves readily to public transportation, cycling, etcetera. (The implementation may be lacking, but the density is there).

Yet 75% of households own a car.

Plus points of owning a car:

Instant availability Portable persistent storage (not lugging a backpack around everywhere) Fun Private (a self-driving car would also be private - but you could own one) Known-good, can decorate the interior

As far as I can see, against all of that, the main inherent advantage of hiring a car as opposed to owning one (self driving or not) is avoiding parking fees and potentially having a higher quality/smoother ride. Maintenance too, but that's just another cost angle outside of clunkers really.

Otherwise it's all down to cost against all of the advantages of car ownership.

Don't get me wrong, self-driving hired cars are awesome, but I think this idea that ownership will just die is nonsense barring heavy regulation that decides people can't be trusted with maintenance etc.

I don't think this is going to happen unless self driving cars become the default model and drive costs down so much that each trip is the equivalent of close to the fare price of a bus ticket.

A tank of gas costs me currently about $20-$25 (Prius) while a recent ride for roughly 13-15 minutes cost me about $20 which definitely doesn't outweigh the value of owning a car trip wise.

Additionally it ignores the overall convenience of owning a car for transporting things like grocery, etc...

As someone who does use Uber and Lyft on several occasions, it's at best a supplementary service for my needs and as I'd imagine, many others