Clueless.
I'll expound more in the discussion area...
...because Agenda 21 will ban the use of private cars and have us all packed into Willie Green bullet trains by the time the technology is perfected.
We don't even have driver less trains and they run on rails for heavens sake.
We’re not that far from self-flying pods programmed to avoid collision and get you to your GPS coordinates quickly, safely, and conveniently. Going to a concert in the big city? Punch in the event and your parking space is already reserved. You may fly with or without looking outside, listen to tunes, watch TV, and drink a brew or two while in transit.
This will all be by virtue of the discovery of nuclear-magno-pneumatic velocitators, capable also of powering the average home for 100 years, no power grid necessary.
I have no doubt driverless cars can work. But people are viewing them as simply technological constructs, completely unconnected to the society in which they operate.
For example, in my city, if driverless cars passed through certain areas, they would most definitely be objects of graffiti “tagging” at best - at worst they would be constantly vandalized, seemingly for fun, or broken into. So then you need to upgrade their protection or laws regarding tampering, etc... Overall, beyond the simple question of “will they work” - these devices then enter the social, economic, racial, environmental etc.. spheres, where technology will take a back-seat.
The short version of why I think he’s wrong is that:
a) I think government will grant blanket immunity from prosecution/lawsuits once the tech proves overall safer than human drivers, and
b) for the foreseeable future there’ll be a requirement for a human ready to take over. That avoids the “software that breaks the law” issue.
Driverless cars are coming faster than most people think. Cars are already incorporating driverless features. Various types of traction control and automated brake control are standard on many vehicles. The new Bentley can park itself - both parallel and diagonal.
I think the first truly driverless vehicles will be UPS and FedEx delivery trucks. With a robotic arm that drops the package near your front door.
They are not “driverless” cars. It says right there that the driver has to be ready to take over the driving in situations that the car can’t handle.
So they’re not “driverless” cars.
The guy is mostly right, except for “driverless” trucks. That will not happen.
The software in a “driverless” car will be no help against a carjacking. No help if your car is surrounded by a band of street savages trying to break in and hurt, kill or rape you.
The braking system will not distinguish between a bag blowing in the wind, a rabbit, a doll, a dog, and a child. The human driver will brake differently for different things. Specifically, he will brake for the dog and the child, and ignore the others.
The real goal in all this is complete government control of what’s on the roads. The statists hate it when you have any freedom to do what you want. This would make everyone the same behind the wheel.
The possibility for government to dictate who goes exactly where, when and at what speed is a tantalizing concept for Big Government types. Add in insurance companies collecting money and not paying it out, and law enforcement being able to stop any car or ground all cars in a tri-county area (for safety reasons. The greens think they’ll be able to dictate how many polluting miles you can drive. Politicians and marketers will want to see the driving history of everyone for their predictive databases.
Lots of pressure to get driverless cars.
These same people think we already have self-firing guns.
Oh they’re happening. Most of the big decisions we make while driving can be lumped into 2 categories: dealing with other people’s mistakes, making our own mistakes. Driverless cars stop making #2, and with enough of them on the road #1 becomes unnecessary.
Insurance policies already cover the car in most cases, that’s why the price of your car, and crash rating, have so much impact on the cost of your insurance. And lacking injuries car accidents are leaning more and more “no fault” and each insurance company is just handling their client.
The legal hurdles will be navigated. And once they’re out there consumer acceptance will follow. Once upon a time there as very little consumer acceptance for cars all, we can see how that changed. A lot of people used to think the internet was silly and or evil too. Times change, technology gets accepted.
Clueless.
.
Driverless vehicles (with no human backup) and drone and driverless delivery vehicles will be the target of so many thieves and pranksters that alone could make them impractical. And hackers will learn to hack the things and divert them to a different destination.
These things might be a bridge too far.
Driver less cars with bench seats may have a market. But with bucket seats there’s no advantage.
And they’ll have to get exempted from seat belt laws.
Anything that increases the fertility rate is a good thing.
As a developer for 30 years, I wouldn’t want to come anywhere close to working on these projects. The meetings with lawyers and marketing and industry/insurance/government would be a nightmare. The decisions of when to protect the driver vs when to do the least likely harm to everyone would be unpleasant either way.
I’m sure there would be lots of talk about how MY car should be allowed to protect ME. And if that’s not allowed, Bernie supporters will want to ensure that the 1% can’t replace the software to protect the owner more than others because the car has to treat the 99% like the 1%. And if the other driver decided to buy a green car made of paper, my SUV may need to total itself because we don’t know what may happen if we hit a car made of paper and fueled by unicorn farts.
And, no matter what immunity the government promises there will be law suites if a bug (or intentional rule) in my code decides who dies.
Personally, I love to drive. I have a performance car with a manual transmission and it's sort of my daily amusement as well as transportation. Others don't feel that way, and more power to them (and more road for me). When it's time for the transition, i.e. when driving isn't fun anymore (my Mom reached that stage when she hit 80 - night driving was just too scary) I'll stop and stick to reminiscing.
Like the time I drove 20 miles in the left lane with my blinker going...
wrong.
we are VERY close to this becoming the norm.
I would trust a computer 10000000000 times more than the average walmart shopper to be driving the car next to me on the road!
I suspect driverless cars will be phased in. Starting with a special lane on the interstates dedicated to them with a higher speed limit. Then gradually the lanes dedicated to driverless will be expanded to include the entire interstate.
Cars driven by humans will be forced to use state highways.
Uninsurable, I would presume.
All the DWI lawyers will loose their jobs?