[teh_pwn]

If self driving cars mature to the point where most people will use them... Would there be any point in actually owing a vehicle? The government can take care in the ownership and maintenance of vehicles.

Absolutely.

You think luxury car cabins are fully featured now, just wait until it actually matters when the driver is a passenger and has time to use stuff.

[Copernicus]

This will make current gaf checking commutes alot less terrifying.

Am plea

[A Human Becoming]

I want one.

This x10. I suck at driving.

[Zaptruder]

From what I've seen, that video is some kind of staged promotional video. Actual Nevada legislation and all real world Google tests require a driver to be watching over the road while the car is driving.

In practice though, assuming that they do have the degree of reliability that they appear to be demonstrating - even with such legislation in place, you'd do little to prevent drivers from engaging in other activities while sitting in a self driving car.

At some point, (maybe even at the start) law enforcement would realize that there isn't much efficacy to arresting 'drivers' of self driving cars that act as passengers.

But such a thing may remain in place in order to reduce liability issues should they occur, a system designed to allow for the widespread adoption and use of these important vehicles.

If there is a fault of the self driving vehicle, then I imagine it might fall under a similar legal purview of any mechanical/electronic fault that induces accidents - which do occur, and are dealt with without the abolishment of vehicles.

[Ether_Snake]

Just wondering if there was something else. Also, Americans are likely to fight carpooling as much as losing control of their vehicles. People like their privacy, and won't want to be adding time to their travels to accommodate others.

Too bad for the US. Just like renewable energy and electric cars! Won't stop the rest of the world from progressing.

[Nelo Ice]

Saw one of these cars while driving on the freeway here in the Bay. Was so nuts actually seeing a google self driving car in person.

[Lord Error]

In practice though, assuming that they do have the degree of reliability that they appear to be demonstrating - even with such legislation in place, you'd do little to prevent drivers from engaging in other activities while sitting in a self driving car. At some point, (maybe even at the start) law enforcement would realize that there isn't much efficacy to arresting 'drivers' of self driving cars that act as passengers. But such a thing may remain in place in order to reduce liability issues should they occur, a system designed to allow for the widespread adoption and use of these important vehicles. If there is a fault of the self driving vehicle, then I imagine it might fall under a similar legal purview of any mechanical/electronic fault that induces accidents - which do occur, and are dealt with without the abolishment of vehicles.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. Drivers will do that if they see that the car can really do everything on its own. However, IMO, even if the vehicles demonstrate safety far beyond your average driver, government will still probably require you to be liable if something goes wrong, and it's proven that you could have saved the situation if you were paying attention. Say if, the electronic system that controls the brake stopped working and you had long time to press the brake, but you didn't.

It might be something like speeding - it's against the law but everyone does it, police looks over it to some degree - however it would mark very badly against you if you go into accident while speeding, so you couldn't react fast enough.

[Zaptruder]

Yeah, I agree with all of that. Drivers will do that if they see that the car can really do everything on its own. However, IMO, even if the vehicles demonstrate safety far beyond your average driver, government will still probably require you to be liable if something goes wrong, and it's proven that you could have saved the situation if you were paying attention. Say if, the electronic system that controls the brake stopped working and you had long time to press the brake, but you didn't. It might be something like speeding - it's against the law but everyone does it, police looks over it to some degree - however it would mark very badly against you if you go into accident while speeding, so you couldn't react fast enough.

While that may be the case, I'd think such a thing would be unnecessarily punitive.

Get into an accident that's kinda not really your fault (ignore the legislation for a moment). If you survive it, then irrespective of whatever difficult/tragedy you suffer through you get hit again by the legal system.

All so that we can have some one to pin the blame on.

Wouldn't it better if we could think about this kinda stuff from an overall social efficacy stand point?

Self driving cars > human drivers.

Humans utilizing their time efficiently (to do things other than drive) while in a self driving car > humans wasting their time looking after a self driving car making sure it doesn't crash.

Can't we just connect the two and go: productivity gained from allowing people to do something else in self driving car -> use that to cover rare instances of injury and damage to parties involved in the self driving vehicle accidents?

You'd save on lives, material, time and stress. It's a win, win situation that is been looked passed because we have to cling to outdated notions of liability and fault.

[Antiochus]

Despite promotions of it utility, it will still be constrained by the same fundamental as human drivers: traffic density

[ReaperXL07]

Ehh, I feel we are already getting too comfortable in allowing computers, and machines to take over things now as is. I don't think i'd care that much for being forced to use a self driving car.

I can see it now, next comes machines that will feed you, whipe our ass, play with your children, take your dog for a walk, have sex with your SO, go to work for you. I know people enjoy being lazy, but damn.

Oh wait, I forgot...A Robot would not be able to have sex with your SO because the physical act would be banned, and only head mounted brain scanners can be used for such a purpose.

If we don't want to do anything ourselves, then why bother living in the first place?

[Lace]

Even if one person died each day from being in one it would still be 100% worth it to me. If every car on the road eventually became automated I can only imagine the dramatic decrease in deaths each year.

[Zaptruder]

Despite promotions of it utility, it will still be constrained by the same fundamental as human drivers: traffic density

If a person isn't driving the vehicle, traffic is much less of an issue. The utility gain from doing something else while the car is stuck in traffic is a great boon.

Like... not just on a personal level, but on a humanity level - when you consider the time we all spend in traffic every year... that's like in the hundreds of billions of hours.

Conservatively on a back of the napkin calculation, that's around 200,000 human life times lost to traffic per annum. If we could regain that, it'd be an incredible boon.

But that's only if you only very narrowly consider it's effects.

If we go beyond that and change the model of ownership and use of vehicles as some are suggesting, the improvements get even better - less time spent paying for and maintaining vehicles, less space wasted on asphalt for idle vehicles.

If we go further again, we can imagine delivery of all sorts of small mundane packages becomes significantly more efficient with self driving vehicles - providing yet another time boost and efficiency gain to the infrastructure of our lives.

[scoobs]

so if you are drunk driving one of these bad boys.. you aren't technically driving. So i see no reason why you should get a DUI.

[MutFox]

I'd want a shower car...
That way I can wake up,
and get ready while I go to work.

[Kaako]

If I try to hit one of these head on with my vehicle what will it do? Will it stop? Will it try to swerve to the right/left? Will it freak the f out? I want to know.

[Lion Heart]

If this becomes legit I'm going to become a truck driver.

[CiSTM]

Ehh, I feel we are already getting too comfortable in allowing computers, and machines to take over things now as is. I don't think i'd care that much for being forced to use a self driving car. I can see it now, next comes machines that will feed you, whipe our ass, play with your children, take your dog for a walk, have sex with your SO, go to work for you. I know people enjoy being lazy, but damn. Oh wait, I forgot...A Robot would not be able to have sex with your SO because the physical act would be banned, and only head mounted brain scanners can be used for such a purpose. If we don't want to do anything ourselves, then why bother living in the first place?

Load of crock. Machines taking over mundane tasks gives you freedom and time, it's up to you how to use that time. If you want to be lazy couch potato then be one, but don't blame the machines for it.

[Zaptruder]

Ehh, I feel we are already getting too comfortable in allowing computers, and machines to take over things now as is. I don't think i'd care that much for being forced to use a self driving car. I can see it now, next comes machines that will feed you, whipe our ass, play with your children, take your dog for a walk, have sex with your SO, go to work for you. I know people enjoy being lazy, but damn. Oh wait, I forgot...A Robot would not be able to have sex with your SO because the physical act would be banned, and only head mounted brain scanners can be used for such a purpose. If we don't want to do anything ourselves, then why bother living in the first place?

Technology has always pushed us to the next level of not interfacing with nature.

At the lowest level of not interfacing with nature, we are as cave men and animals. We don't even have language to communicate with, because that in itself is a form of technology - an abstraction away from our reality, allowing us to communicate concept and ideas independently of actual examples of things to show people.

At the most abstract, top end of what it means to live... of why we live - it is the desire for experiential freedom that gives us meaning.

The ability to experience our world and its possibilities with as much freedom as is possible. Everything our society has done - every single increase in efficiency and convenience has been about increasing the envelope of what is experientially possible and available. At least ideally.

On a personal level - we work to get money, to get power, to get this and that... to what end? To the end of experiential freedom. The freedom to control our environment. The freedom to experience with ever reducing restrictions.

This sort of obvious efficiency technology helps us move closer to that high end goal of experiential freedom. Been freed from the mundane task of controlling a vehicle in traffic to get to places we go that provide us with some degree of experiential freedom, or provide us with the means to obtain that experiential freedom - allows us some degree of increased experientiality.

[Zaptruder]

If I try to hit one of these head on with my vehicle what will it do? Will it stop? Will it try to swerve to the right/left? Will it freak the f out? I want to know.

It would likely attempt some degree of evasive maneuvering, but I don't think it'll be impossible to hit if that is someone's goals.

When you compensate to assume that everyone is out to get you, then you lose out on the efficiencies you get when you don't assume that - you have to give other cars wider berths, driving slower, further away, finding that some gaps are not tenable, even though they're physically large enough.

On the other hand, as long as it treats other vehicles as rational, and provides sufficient berth to account for human margins of error, then it should do more than well enough when combined with full surround 'vision' and inhuman reaction rates.

[Necromanti]

If the project is successful, it would be nice to see it integrated into several modes of public transport, too. It has a lot of potential (and implications) that go beyond just a self-driving car.

[ReaperXL07]

Load of crock. Machines taking over mundane tasks gives you freedom and time, it's up to you how to use that time. If you want to be lazy couch potato then be one, but don't blame the machines for it.

This is a personal view of course, but I don't think people should be "allowed" to be lazy. I grew up in a culture where people work together to accomplish things, where people still grow/hunt most of what they eat. Build/make most of what they use, still interact both on a spiritual level, and physical level with nature and the world we live in. I would agree that I have allowed pieces of europeon culture into my life as I no longer live directly in that culture, but all this is to me is another example of our species becoming too dependant on machines to live our lives for us.

I don't really expect a large portion of people to understand my point of view on this issue.

Technology has always pushed us to the next level of not interfacing with nature. At the lowest level of not interfacing with nature, we are as cave men and animals. We don't even have language to communicate with, because that in itself is a form of technology - an abstraction away from our reality, allowing us to communicate concept and ideas independently of actual examples of things to show people. At the most abstract, top end of what it means to live... of why we live - it is the desire for experiential freedom that gives us meaning. The ability to experience our world and its possibilities with as much freedom as is possible. Everything our society has done - every single increase in efficiency and convenience has been about increasing the envelope of what is experientially possible and available. At least ideally. On a personal level - we work to get money, to get power, to get this and that... to what end? To the end of experiential freedom. The freedom to control our environment. The freedom to experience with ever reducing restrictions. This sort of obvious efficiency technology helps us move closer to that high end goal of experiential freedom. Been freed from the mundane task of controlling a vehicle in traffic to get to places we go that provide us with some degree of experiential freedom, or provide us with the means to obtain that experiential freedom - allows us some degree of increased experientiality.

I'm not going to lie to you, I don't understand much of this post. I'm assuming your trying to say that technology like this allows us more freedom to experiment with our daily lives, but in my view it's just another excuse for people to not take responsibility for what they do with themselves, and instead leave it up to the choices of machines.

I don't think I will ever personally see the benefits of allowing computers to do everything for us. I think it makes us softer, weaker, and less ambitious, because why bother doing anything on our own when some robot can do it for us?

[Sentry]

If we don't want to do anything ourselves, then why bother living in the first place?

Yeah man, I mean why even both inventing the elevator and risk dying when you can just get their yourself by walking the stairs and living LIFE! Fuck the microwave too, I wanna cook my own food. ETC

This argument is always around when new technologies make way. After that technology has become the norm, no one even questions it.

Point is if you don't see the benefits of self driving vehicles your either daft or illogically fearful of the cliche 'machine takeover'. I'll let you in on a little secret: technology has already taken over almost all of your life. Deal with it.

I'm not going to lie to you, I don't understand much of this post. I'm assuming your trying to say that technology like this allows us more freedom to experiment with our daily lives, but in my view it's just another excuse for people to not take responsibility for what they do with themselves, and instead leave it up to the choices of machines.

Machines don't choose anything. In their 'mind' their is no choice. When decisions are arrived at through logical there ultimately is no choice at all. Like a calculator. The answer is the answer whether you arrived at it or a machine did. Only difference is the machine won't make mistakes and will arrive at an answer that a human wouldn't be able to in its lifetime.

[ReaperXL07]

Yeah man, I mean why even both inventing the elevator and risk dying when you can just get their yourself by walking the stairs and living LIFE! Fuck the microwave too, I wanna cook my own food. ETC This argument is always around when new technologies make way. After that technology has become the norm, no one even questions it. Point is if you don't see the benefits of self driving vehicles your either daft or illogically fearful of the cliche 'machine takeover'. I'll let you in on a little secret: technology has already taken over almost all of your life. Deal with it.

Well to the Bolded, I always use the stairs, and I cook everything that me, and my family eat. I don't own a microwave, so atleast in my experience your point is lost in that reguard because my life is no better for either of those inventions.

Also, I'm not saying that there would not be benefits to this technology for some people. I can see benefits for older people, people who have a few too many drinks and should not be driving, and other examples that people have shared here. I also never said that this tech should not exsist at all, My point is that this technology should not be Forced on to people. I don't "have" to use a microwave, I don't "have"to use an elevator, and I should not "have" to use a self driving car.

[Zaptruder]

I'm not going to lie to you, I don't understand much of this post. I'm assuming your trying to say that technology like this allows us more freedom to experiment with our daily lives, but in my view it's just another excuse for people to not take responsibility for what they do with themselves, and instead leave it up to the choices of machines. I don't think I will ever personally see the benefits of allowing computers to do everything for us. I think it makes us softer, weaker, and less ambitious, because why bother doing anything on our own when some robot can do it for us?

I'll make it easy for you.

Driving cars in traffic isn't fun. It's boring. It's a waste of time. Yes driving cars is fun. No we shouldn't eliminate the experience of driving cars (it can be preserved on the race track or just through recreational driving zones (i.e. outside urban driving centres). But we should have the option to do other stuff if we choose to.

If two machines could fuck, do you think that would stop us from wanting to fuck? No right? So why not using machines to enhance the things we want to do, and reduce the tedium of what we don't want to do?

As an example to what you're saying; because that's what tech has always been doing. Running water? Well, we could just go and fetch water from some stream, why do we need running water? I mean you lose out on all that exercise and mental strength of knowing how to get water and where it comes from. That direct personal experience, all gone!

Flushing toilets? Why do that when you can just dig a hole in the ground right?

Hey... if tech could actually make you stronger and fitter while not doing anything... would you actually want to go through the pains of doing it normally just because?

At the extremes of the argument you're making... why even bother driving a car? Why not just walk to where you want to go?

[Sentry]

This is a personal view of course, but I don't think people should be "allowed" to be lazy.

Driving is one of the laziest, most time consuming engagements humans across the world take part in today.

In realty it's technology that will ultimately make us truly free. If you want something to blame, see money, politics, and society's use of technology.

You don't blame your television set for a couch potato, you blame jersey shore and other bullshit that is fed through it. That's society and culture's blame, not technology or machines.

[maharg]

Well to the Bolded, I always use the stairs, and I cook everything that me, and my family eat. I don't own a microwave, so atleast in my experience your point is lost in that reguard because my life is no better for either of those inventions. Also, I'm not saying that there would not be benefits to this technology for some people. I can see benefits for older people, people who have a few too many drinks and should not be driving, and other examples that people have shared here. I also never said that this tech should not exsist at all, My point is that this technology should not be Forced on to people. I don't "have" to use a microwave, I don't "have"to use an elevator, and I should not "have" to use a self driving car.

See how long that lasts, at least in cities, when half the people choose self-driving cars and every accident still has a person behind the wheel involved.

I live in the snowy mountains of BC and drive highways with 200+ foot drops, sometimes with no guard rails or barricades. And lots of semi-trailer traffic. Sometimes you have to make quick decisions that I'd rather not leave to a computer, and driving in these conditions takes a certain "feel for the road" that I don't think computers are capable of learning.

This is baffling to me. A computer can react to things thousands of times faster than you can. Radar can see when visibility is poor or nil for you. A 'feel for the road' is easily trumped by being able to perceive everything about the road in a split second and all at the same time.

[Necromanti]

This is baffling to me. A computer can react to things thousands of times faster than you can. Radar can see when visibility is poor or nil for you. A 'feel for the road' is easily trumped by being able to perceive everything about the road in a split second and all at the same time.

Indeed. With enough computational power and some clever code, the car could easily break instantaneously before you'd even have time to react, and even plot a safer course immediately to the point of it almost seeming like foresight. (In the future, maybe.) Technology is a beautiful thing. Even higher-end cars today have a range of sensors that can assist in braking where you wouldn't have the time to react.

Now the question is if the car happens to interpret a cliff's edge as being a road...

[Sentry]

My point is that this technology should not be Forced on to people. I don't "have" to use a microwave, I don't "have"to use an elevator, and I should not "have" to use a self driving car.

But you already are being forced, you've just grown so used to it that it isn't even apparent to you. Have you never driven a vehicle in your life to reach a destination otherwise unreachable? Have you never used a computer to do something you otherwise wouldn't have been able to do? etc.

It's arrogantly selfish to say because of your illogical desire to drive a car manually that millions will have to die from car accidents and millions of hours from our lives should be wasted. In a system where all vehicles are connected with one another (which is inevitable for high speed auto-transit) there is no place for a human to partake in the chore of driving. I'm talking in the future of course, but it's the pointless clinging onto the old norms that stops these technologies from flourishing and changing lives for the better.

As for the stairs and microwave argument, they are examples. The world we live in would not operate if we didn't have elevators. Your CHOICE to always use stairs is irrelevant because it's not logical if applied to every person. If someone was injured and needed to get up or down the building as fast as possible, you would use the stairs? Of course not. That's the point, the technology is useful and that's a fact. You not using it doesn't mean anything. I could just as easily use the elevator and still get a workout later by going to a gym or just jogging elsewhere. It doesn't disprove the need for elevators to exist.

The elevator is just an analogous example, but I digress.

[Cyan]

Well to the Bolded, I always use the stairs

Not a ladder? Or climbing hand over hand up the outside of the building?

and I cook everything that me, and my family eat.

Over an open fire built with logs that you chopped yourself, with your bare hands, I hope. Wouldn't want to get lazy and let machines do that for you.

[Pandemic]

I enjoy driving, but I guess it'll be interesting to read the newspaper in the front drivers seat while you're on your way to work..

[dabig2]

I'll be counting down the days till every car on public roads are forced to be self-driving. Driving was never a human right. Humans aren't wired the right way to be able to drive these 2 ton vehicles at high-speeds. That's why most of your current driving experience even today is assisted by computers on-board..

Since the automatic transmission came along in the 1940s, control has slowly but surely been taken away from the driver. It is only a matter of time thankfully before all control is wrestled away from our inept asses.

Self-driving cars will transform our current infrastructure for the better once a majority of cars on the road are self-driving. This is great as our current highway infrastructure in particular is going to utterly collapse within the next 40 years...

[ReaperXL07]

But you already are being forced, you've just grown so used to it that it isn't even apparent to you. Have you never driven a vehicle in your life to reach a destination otherwise unreachable? Have you never used a computer to do something you otherwise wouldn't have been able to do? etc. It's arrogantly selfish to say because of your illogical desire to drive a car manually that millions will have to die from car accidents and millions of hours from our lives should be wasted. In a system where all vehicles are connected with one another (which is inevitable for high speed auto-transit) there is no place for a human to partake in the chore of driving. I'm talking in the future of course, but it's the pointless clinging onto the old norms that stops these technologies from flourishing and changing lives for the better. As for the stairs and microwave argument, they are examples. The world we live in would not operate if we didn't have elevators. Your CHOICE to always use stairs is irrelevant because it's not logical if applied to every person. If someone was injured and needed to get up or down the building as fast as possible, you would use the stairs? Of course not. That's the point, the technology is useful and that's a fact. You not using it doesn't mean anything. I could just as easily use the elevator and still get a workout later by going to a gym or just jogging elsewhere. It doesn't disprove the need for elevators to exist. The elevator is just an analogous example, but I digress.

I have no desire to fight with you, as I said previously I don't expect many here to agree with my point of view. I do not think all technologies that have been invented are automatically for the better, there are various examples of how some technologies have harmed our planet, our view of nature, and countless lives in various ways.

I am not saying that this technology is bad in itself, I do believe it could be useful for many, and in various situations as with many other things that have been developed. The difference here is that in "most" cases I can make the choice to use it or not. Some here believe that we should not have that choice, and I disagree. Would it make a difference to you if I suggested that I would think that if these cars came into full production that I think those who want to still drive themselves should be given stricter driving tests in order to be aloud to do so? I already feel that driving tests are too lax anyway.

Not a ladder? Or climbing hand over hand up the outside of the building? Over an open fire built with logs that you chopped yourself, with your bare hands, I hope. Wouldn't want to get lazy and let machines do that for you.

Well the ladder that I do own I made, but your right in that it's still an invention, and I use it. As for the open fire, personally I would prefer to cook this way many times, but givin that I live in a townhouse complex it's not as simple as that. Before I moved away from my people though it was common to do so.

[pigeon]

I would buy a self-driving car before I would buy a house.

I mean, not if they cost the same amount, obviously, then I would get the house. I just mean it would be a higher priority for me. I fucking hate driving and living in Oakland means I have to do it all the time.

Of course, if they would just improve mass transit in the Bay sufficiently I wouldn't have to drive at all, but the reality of America is that we'll probably get fleets of self-driving cars before we get a good passenger rail system.

[Castor Krieg]

This will allow people to get extra 1 hour - 2 hours of free time per day to check news, read newspapers, etc. That would be huge. Sadly this won't become a reality in the next 10 years or so. Self-driven car + centralized traffic management system = you would get to your destination quicker within the speed limit than you do now trying to power-through 100km/h every 500m or so.

[Polari]

Individually-owned cars have poor ROI, huge amounts of urban surface area is wasted by countless unused parked cars, often occupying around 1/3 of the available space between two rows of houses on a single street, sometimes even nearly half. Multiply that by the number of streets and the wasted surface area is catastrophically large. By having a network of on-demand self-driven cars, you could eliminate around half of the existing streets, which would make it possible to increase the size of buildings or use the saved surface area to turn them into green lanes. Only a one-way lane would be left for servicing (police/fire-trucks/ambulance/moving). The network would maximize ROI since cars would be used almost 24/7, unlike current cars which go unused for almost 90% of the day, and when not used they would redistribute themselves according to demand predictions based on time of the day, day of the week, etc., to speed up the service. Moving to a on-demand self-driven car network would cut down on overall fuel consumption, reduce noise (most of the noise in a city is coming from cars), and offer rapid on-demand service. There is also a lessened need for asphalt or concrete and maintenance, as well as fewer accidents. And in the end, it's a lot more money back in people's pockets, to be spent on what they want, rather than spend it on what they need, which is always a benefit to strengthen the economy and favor innovation.

"B-b-but I like driving!"

[yogloo]

SMH at people who thinks they can outdrive "cheating" AI.

[Andrex]

This will allow people to get extra 1 hour - 2 hours of free time per day to check news, read newspapers, etc. That would be huge. Sadly this won't become a reality in the next 10 years or so. Self-driven car + centralized traffic management system = you would get to your destination quicker within the speed limit than you do now trying to power-through 100km/h every 500m or so.

If everyone had to use self-driving cars, there would be no speed limits.

[Cooter]

I saw one today near Lake Tahoe. Pretty cool.

[Pandemic]

So if the car were to crash, who would be held responsible? The driver, the car or the car manufacturers?

[Andrex]

So if the car were to crash, who would be held responsible? The driver, the car or the car manufacturers?

I feel like we're driving in circles.

[Castor Krieg]

If everyone had to use self-driving cars, there would be no speed limits.

There will be speed limits due to safety reasons and in case something malfunctions. I meant the traffic will move way faster because the system will allocate space, etc. to all cars at once, instead e.g. that one fucker changing lanes and making 15 cars stop to let him in.

[CiSTM]

I have no desire to fight with you, as I said previously I don't expect many here to agree with my point of view. I do not think all technologies that have been invented are automatically for the better, there are various examples of how some technologies have harmed our planet, our view of nature, and countless lives in various ways. I am not saying that this technology is bad in itself, I do believe it could be useful for many, and in various situations as with many other things that have been developed. The difference here is that in "most" cases I can make the choice to use it or not. Some here believe that we should not have that choice, and I disagree. Would it make a difference to you if I suggested that I would think that if these cars came into full production that I think those who want to still drive themselves should be given stricter driving tests in order to be aloud to do so? I already feel that driving tests are too lax anyway.

I don't really understand your POV at all. There are no benefits for people driving around if computers can do it better, it could possibly saves lives, that's all really matters imo. You can choose not to use it and take a walk or bike ride to work, etc. Strict driving tests would make big difference but there are still far too many scenarios for human error that you can't fix by driving lessons.

edit. especially your gripe with cars seems odd. I like the technology but I donät like if it's get too good.

[Trent Strong]

Virus uploaded to all self-driving cars. 1 billion people killed in a single day in Carmageddon 2022.

[Zaptruder]

Virus uploaded to all self-driving cars. 1 billion people killed in a single day in Carmageddon 2022.

Is that they same virus they'd upload into airplanes all around the world?

[Pandemic]

Is that they same virus they'd upload into airplanes all around the world?

Yes, the virus allowed planes to land safely.

[squidyj]

Is that they same virus they'd upload into airplanes all around the world?

The virus would make the cars think they're air-planes and air-planes think they're cars

[fallagin]

Peoples cars are going to get hacked and wreak havoc.

[Hoo-doo]

It's the inevitable future of human transport. Human beings can't be trusted behind the wheel, seeing as they make a thousand times more mistakes than any computer would.
Every car being automated could mean the speed limit could be raised by a lot and traffic jams could be a thing of the past by simply re-routing and managing traffic flow by a central computer.

Even as someone who is incredibly fond of the act of driving a car, I say bring it on. Driving "manually driven" cars will likely end up a niche hobby that's done on private tracks.

[MJLord]

I want to know how they plan to have the car handle situations like if a traffic light is out and there is a police officer out there directing traffic. Is the car going to be smart enough to correctly interpret the officer's signals and hand gestures? Because they're not uniform gestures that can be easily programmed to register. Some use broad gestures like a baseball coach signaling to steal 2nd base. Others just a little "come on" motion with their fingers. And any other permutation in between.

You could link it to a transport office and telecommunicate the lights ? I don't know xD

[Lord Error]

I don't really understand your POV at all. There are no benefits for people driving around if computers can do it better, it could possibly saves lives, that's all really matters imo.

The worry of many people is that this line of thinking would be applicable to many more things in the future. It will come to the logical end of why do anything when computers can do it better, and the question is not what would we do when we reach that end (it would be some completely utopian society, hopefully) but what would happen on the long road to that point, when more and more jobs become useless, as computers can do them better. Self driving cars are symbolic of this IMO, not just because they would eliminate every driving job imaginable, but as a sign of things to come, where not only menial repetitive works are being phased out to machines, but also those that require analytical decision making.