Why driverless car's are a LONG way off.
Discussion
I think we underestimate what our brains are taking in and processing to enable us to drive.
When you drive down a busy high street with all sorts of road users and signals and crossings, and 'is he or isn't he' decisions to make, and assumptions, and that toddler has just broken free of his mother's hand where's he going to run, etc, etc, the load is huge.
When you drive down a busy high street with all sorts of road users and signals and crossings, and 'is he or isn't he' decisions to make, and assumptions, and that toddler has just broken free of his mother's hand where's he going to run, etc, etc, the load is huge.
Gary C said:
So basically, they already exist, and they work.
They do. Tesla reckon they have evidence that their automated driving system is twice as safe as a human driver. Google think they are as safe as a human driver.Cars with "autopilot" are still years away from mass adoption. But only years...not decades.
Machine learning is going to achieve remarkable things.
This guff about pilotless drones - if we are talking about the 1s being used for military purposes in the Middle East right now then they are not pilotless. The pilots don't sit in the planes but they still get flown by humans sitting somewhere safe like Germany and using satellite communications.
Back on topic, driverless cars won't be driverless 'cos you will need to be alert (and sober) to use one. Forget surfing the net as you travel unless you are a passenger.
Back on topic, driverless cars won't be driverless 'cos you will need to be alert (and sober) to use one. Forget surfing the net as you travel unless you are a passenger.
EnglishTony said:
Back on topic, driverless cars won't be driverless 'cos you will need to be alert (and sober) to use one. Forget surfing the net as you travel unless you are a passenger.
I'm absolutely convinced that you are wrong. It may take a while, but I'm confident we will see cars where the human cannot directly control the vehicle in my lifetime (ie in the next forty years or so). witko999 said:
OldGermanHeaps said:
I think the pool car idea is doomed to failure due to human nature undortunately, the only reason taxis aren't overflowing out the sunroof with piss, s
t, vomit and fagends is the driver is there to regulate the behaviour of the large portion of society that behave like animals when there isn't someone stopping them.
Not only that, but we already have hugely congested roads in a lot of the country. If you also add empty vehicles cluttering up the roads on the way to pick people up then it could potentially be like an all day rush hour.t, vomit and fagends is the driver is there to regulate the behaviour of the large portion of society that behave like animals when there isn't someone stopping them.Plus I can see different levels of car, similar to taxis, private hire, limo etc we have today. Want the no frills, hosed down at the end of the day 'public transport' option? £50/m. Want the exclusive leather seats and full entertainment system, reserved for those with taste? £200/m please.
The idea that the market, the manufacturers and the new companies that will emerge won't have solutions to these 'issues' is naive.
AH33 said:
Nobody on here should be in favour of them anyway, once they're here the legislation to stop us driving ourselves won't be far behind.
I think you're absolutely right. Furthermore, in 100 years time, as has been said a number of times before, people will be astonished that we ever let humans do something as inherently dangerous and value-less as driving a car. It'll be like sending kids up chimneys - something that used to be entirely normal, but we just can't conceive of doing in the modern world.The horse-riding analogy is a good one. 200 years ago, it was the only gig (pun intended) in town, so everybody did it. These days, it's considered a minority hobby for those who are that way inclined. Driving will be the same: if you really want to, you can go to a track and have a hoon with like-minded people. Otherwise, why would you want to spend hours of your life pointlessly piloting a vehicle when you can frankly be doing something more productive.
heebeegeetee said:
1. Drivers fail to handle the circumstances, and crash as a result.
2. In my 40 odd years of driving I don't think I've ever encountered that. (I've driven on tracks by mistake though). But you might be missing a massive point. The reason that roads have to be closed are often because drivers can not be trusted to behave properly at an accident scene - they might speed, or shout at the emergency workers, or film the scene as they drive through. Driverless cars could be trusted to pass through the scene safely.
In any case the odds of a convenient track being in place are so remote that we can just forget that.
Here's an example for you though - true story. Truck breaks down on a dc in conditions of perfect visibility. Two cars approach but both drivers fail to give way to each other and attempt to pass side-by-side. They can't so they stop. Motorcyclist comes up behind at speed and crashes into the scene.
3. As you know, pilotless drones are striking targets with phenomenal accuracy (irrespective of whether the target is correct or not).
However we should be careful about comparisons with aircraft, because when they stop working they can fall out od the sky. Cars won't do that. When a car stops unexpectedly it can cause drivers enormous problems but I don't think this give driverless cars any - I imagine the driverless cars are communicating each other so will know a car has stopped ahead.
Meantime, drivers running into the car in front is the most common type of collision.
Couple of points2. In my 40 odd years of driving I don't think I've ever encountered that. (I've driven on tracks by mistake though). But you might be missing a massive point. The reason that roads have to be closed are often because drivers can not be trusted to behave properly at an accident scene - they might speed, or shout at the emergency workers, or film the scene as they drive through. Driverless cars could be trusted to pass through the scene safely.
In any case the odds of a convenient track being in place are so remote that we can just forget that.
Here's an example for you though - true story. Truck breaks down on a dc in conditions of perfect visibility. Two cars approach but both drivers fail to give way to each other and attempt to pass side-by-side. They can't so they stop. Motorcyclist comes up behind at speed and crashes into the scene.
3. As you know, pilotless drones are striking targets with phenomenal accuracy (irrespective of whether the target is correct or not).
However we should be careful about comparisons with aircraft, because when they stop working they can fall out od the sky. Cars won't do that. When a car stops unexpectedly it can cause drivers enormous problems but I don't think this give driverless cars any - I imagine the driverless cars are communicating each other so will know a car has stopped ahead.
Meantime, drivers running into the car in front is the most common type of collision.
Drones are generally piloted as pointed out above. Also, no one cares when they crash - doesn't make the news, doesn't kill anyone we care about. They don't have the mechanical redundancy that airliners do for just that reason.
The comparison with aircraft is very relevant. Flying is a really easy problem to solve. You don't have to be with more than 1/4 a mile of your target position most of the time, and for all the occasions where you have to be in precisely the right place, there is all sorts of location technology guiding you in. No kids on the runway, very little chance of the plane in front stopping because the pilot needs a pee. And yet, airlines, which are not known for their largesse these days, persist in taking up a huge amount of space for very expensive people to fly the planes. If they got rid of them, they could whack another 6 1st seats in the front and stop paying two people about £70k each.
So why don't they remove pilots?
1) The public would not accept it. This can almost certainly be overcome for driverless cars, but it shows the inertia in society. I think there will be a huge amount of hand wringing when the first Tesla driver decides to abuse autopilot, reads a book with his hands on the wheel and has a massive stack as a result. It will happen. The only reason why it hasn't already is that there are not that many of them, and being expensive, they are generally in the hands of sensible people.
2) Even in the hugely controlled world of aviation, there are a vast number of scenarios where a rule based system (which is what all these controllers are) will fail to work out what the problem is. Hit by a missile? Haven't programmed that. Had a turbine disk explode and cut random wiring? Haven't programmed that, and anyway, most of the sensors are out. Double engine failure, need to land the plane on a river? Nope, haven't programmed that either. In all of those cases, the fallible human worked it out. The computer would have flown into the ground, with the wings perfectly level.
Driverless cars talking to each other is just layering on another level of complexity and opportunity for failure. IF we assume that this capability is required, then it has to be completely available - so we need high reliability internet (or similar mesh type) connectivity. That is not pervasive, and current mobile tech is nothing like 99% reliable. Try going to your mobile provider and asking for a service that your life depends on - they can't do it. My provider can't even provide a decent signal between Junction 10 and 11 of the M4.
My honest view is that this will be developed in tandem with AI - you need a capability that is smarter, can interpret, can learn and also (very importantly) fill in the blanks. All of the cool ideas, such as inter car communication, can be used to make it faster/better/more convenient, but the "driver" has to be able to handle any situation, just as pretty much every human with a driving license can do. The advantages of the computers will be that they won't make stupid mistakes (they will make systemic mistakes), but it will be a long journey to get there.
rxe said:
heebeegeetee said:
1. Drivers fail to handle the circumstances, and crash as a result.
2. In my 40 odd years of driving I don't think I've ever encountered that. (I've driven on tracks by mistake though). But you might be missing a massive point. The reason that roads have to be closed are often because drivers can not be trusted to behave properly at an accident scene - they might speed, or shout at the emergency workers, or film the scene as they drive through. Driverless cars could be trusted to pass through the scene safely.
In any case the odds of a convenient track being in place are so remote that we can just forget that.
Here's an example for you though - true story. Truck breaks down on a dc in conditions of perfect visibility. Two cars approach but both drivers fail to give way to each other and attempt to pass side-by-side. They can't so they stop. Motorcyclist comes up behind at speed and crashes into the scene.
3. As you know, pilotless drones are striking targets with phenomenal accuracy (irrespective of whether the target is correct or not).
However we should be careful about comparisons with aircraft, because when they stop working they can fall out od the sky. Cars won't do that. When a car stops unexpectedly it can cause drivers enormous problems but I don't think this give driverless cars any - I imagine the driverless cars are communicating each other so will know a car has stopped ahead.
Meantime, drivers running into the car in front is the most common type of collision.
Couple of points2. In my 40 odd years of driving I don't think I've ever encountered that. (I've driven on tracks by mistake though). But you might be missing a massive point. The reason that roads have to be closed are often because drivers can not be trusted to behave properly at an accident scene - they might speed, or shout at the emergency workers, or film the scene as they drive through. Driverless cars could be trusted to pass through the scene safely.
In any case the odds of a convenient track being in place are so remote that we can just forget that.
Here's an example for you though - true story. Truck breaks down on a dc in conditions of perfect visibility. Two cars approach but both drivers fail to give way to each other and attempt to pass side-by-side. They can't so they stop. Motorcyclist comes up behind at speed and crashes into the scene.
3. As you know, pilotless drones are striking targets with phenomenal accuracy (irrespective of whether the target is correct or not).
However we should be careful about comparisons with aircraft, because when they stop working they can fall out od the sky. Cars won't do that. When a car stops unexpectedly it can cause drivers enormous problems but I don't think this give driverless cars any - I imagine the driverless cars are communicating each other so will know a car has stopped ahead.
Meantime, drivers running into the car in front is the most common type of collision.
Drones are generally piloted as pointed out above. Also, no one cares when they crash - doesn't make the news, doesn't kill anyone we care about. They don't have the mechanical redundancy that airliners do for just that reason.
The comparison with aircraft is very relevant. Flying is a really easy problem to solve. You don't have to be with more than 1/4 a mile of your target position most of the time, and for all the occasions where you have to be in precisely the right place, there is all sorts of location technology guiding you in. No kids on the runway, very little chance of the plane in front stopping because the pilot needs a pee. And yet, airlines, which are not known for their largesse these days, persist in taking up a huge amount of space for very expensive people to fly the planes. If they got rid of them, they could whack another 6 1st seats in the front and stop paying two people about £70k each.
So why don't they remove pilots?
1) The public would not accept it. This can almost certainly be overcome for driverless cars, but it shows the inertia in society. I think there will be a huge amount of hand wringing when the first Tesla driver decides to abuse autopilot, reads a book with his hands on the wheel and has a massive stack as a result. It will happen. The only reason why it hasn't already is that there are not that many of them, and being expensive, they are generally in the hands of sensible people.
2) Even in the hugely controlled world of aviation, there are a vast number of scenarios where a rule based system (which is what all these controllers are) will fail to work out what the problem is. Hit by a missile? Haven't programmed that. Had a turbine disk explode and cut random wiring? Haven't programmed that, and anyway, most of the sensors are out. Double engine failure, need to land the plane on a river? Nope, haven't programmed that either. In all of those cases, the fallible human worked it out. The computer would have flown into the ground, with the wings perfectly level.
Driverless cars talking to each other is just layering on another level of complexity and opportunity for failure. IF we assume that this capability is required, then it has to be completely available - so we need high reliability internet (or similar mesh type) connectivity. That is not pervasive, and current mobile tech is nothing like 99% reliable. Try going to your mobile provider and asking for a service that your life depends on - they can't do it. My provider can't even provide a decent signal between Junction 10 and 11 of the M4.
My honest view is that this will be developed in tandem with AI - you need a capability that is smarter, can interpret, can learn and also (very importantly) fill in the blanks. All of the cool ideas, such as inter car communication, can be used to make it faster/better/more convenient, but the "driver" has to be able to handle any situation, just as pretty much every human with a driving license can do. The advantages of the computers will be that they won't make stupid mistakes (they will make systemic mistakes), but it will be a long journey to get there.
rxe said:
So why don't they remove pilots?
1) The public would not accept it. This can almost certainly be overcome for driverless cars, but it shows the inertia in society.
There's a world of difference between flying 35000ft above the ground in a tube nobody is quite sure how it stays up there, with certain death if it doesn't, and doing 40mph on roads that we all do every day.1) The public would not accept it. This can almost certainly be overcome for driverless cars, but it shows the inertia in society.
I imagine PH in the early 1900s, it won't work, it'll fall out the sky, the public won't want it, who needs to go to Lithuania anyway, why do they need to get there so quickly, it'll be too expensive, ships have more space and entertainment bla bla. It was baws then and it's baws now.
There are very few things the public won't accept. And even when we don't (Iraq war, capital punishment, potentially Brexit) we'll get what governments and business want us to have. The public is managed and manipulated by vested interests. If pilotless planes were 1/4 the price to New York the public would be on them like a shot.
kambites said:
EnglishTony said:
Back on topic, driverless cars won't be driverless 'cos you will need to be alert (and sober) to use one. Forget surfing the net as you travel unless you are a passenger.
I'm absolutely convinced that you are wrong. It may take a while, but I'm confident we will see cars where the human cannot directly control the vehicle in my lifetime (ie in the next forty years or so). There are other issues at play here. If these things are truly driverless, assuming you don't need to be sober to tell if where to go and notice when it's got it wrong and is taking you to your ex girlfriends rather than your current one's place, the more serious point is about insurance.
"Hello, my name is English Tony and I'd like to insure a driverless car please and yes I intend to get in it rat-arsed". That'll be a cost problem then.
Alternatively Elon Musk and his ilk as manufacturers will have to carry the Insurance burden. For a vehicle that takes unsupervised drunks from a to b. These costs will obviously be passed on to the customer.
In short, either you have to pay attention to what is going on (in which case you might as well drive) 'cos it's your insurance premium on the line or you pay a fortune to the manufacturer to cover their insurance costs and you might s well drive yourself and save the money.
Moving on, it is noticeable that you can use the gap between a car using one of those radar distance things and slide in front (which explains why 90% of drivers with this feature switch it off permanently after the first week). Imagine I am the only self driven car on the way home. I shall be able to queue jump the whole way and get home in half the time. Who wants to sit in a top of the range Merc being forced to give space to some scrote in a 20 year old car?
Which means you will have to ban self driven cars and that's going to go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
Yup, the world of difference is that the magic tube is far, far safer than driving, on pretty much any measure.
Your automated airline would probably work for about 6 months until the first accident happened - that is a generous interpretation of the interval between incidents where the pilots have to do something that saves the aircraft.
Your automated airline would probably work for about 6 months until the first accident happened - that is a generous interpretation of the interval between incidents where the pilots have to do something that saves the aircraft.
EnglishTony said:
There are other issues at play here. If these things are truly driverless, assuming you don't need to be sober to tell if where to go and notice when it's got it wrong and is taking you to your ex girlfriends rather than your current one's place, the more serious point is about insurance.
What leads you to think the various interested parties (manufacturers, insurers, governments etc) haven't had discussions on how the insurance aspect will work in practice?It's clearly one of the big 'issues'. It's ridiculous to think it's not been explored at the macro level and probably in serious detail. Nobody here is coming up with anything that hasn't already been raised and overcome/planned to overcome.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
NASA developed a successful enhanced FBW, using a neural network, allowing the aircraft to be controllable with several flight surfaces U/S. It was developed for Fighter aircraft, battle damage etc. They had a flying demonstrator which allowed the aircraft to be flyable and controllable with multiple control surfaces disabled. This was in the early 2000s. The programme was cancelled due to cost cutbacks.
Yup, and I'm pretty sure that either Boeing or Mcdonnell Douglas developed a capability to fly the plane on engines only, per Sioux City and that Baghdad link I posted upthread. Never implemented because it was too complex and dangerous - which shows the problem with solving the "edge cases". Nevertheless, I think this will be the direction it has to go in. EnglishTony said:
I am going to have to disagree with you, sorry.
No need to apologise. People are allowed to have different opinions, even on Pistonheads. None of us are clairvoyant so it's all speculation. 
If I had to guess, I'd say we'll see cars capable of completely autonomous control (but still with a human backup) in the next ten to fifteen years and cars with no direct means of human control at all in about 30 to 40. But I might well be wrong. I could see motorways ultimately going "automated car only", but I can't see it happening on normal roads.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 2nd June 10:41
I might be stuck in traffic jams for most of it, but i'm glad I get to drive my own car on my commute. I have privacy, a few opportunities for fun and having something to concentrate on keeps me engaged. I absolutely HATE public transport of any kind, and people talking about "freeing up time on the commute" in a self driving car don't seem to realise that your boss will want to give you things to do in that "free" time. It's not going to be full of people riding to work still asleep or riding home drunk while watching netflix.
They may promise a stress free, no congestion utopia but all I see is a stream of google and apple bubble cars sat in a queue of traffic because the first one in line is yielding to a 72 year old woman or newly liberated unaccompanied 5 year old riding his bicycle to school down the A1.
They may promise a stress free, no congestion utopia but all I see is a stream of google and apple bubble cars sat in a queue of traffic because the first one in line is yielding to a 72 year old woman or newly liberated unaccompanied 5 year old riding his bicycle to school down the A1.
rxe said:
but the "driver" has to be able to handle any situation, just as pretty much every human with a driving license can do.
There isn't much in your post that I wish to address, because I think all those issues will be addressed, and possibly already are apart from human frailty.The only bit I fundamentally disagree is the quote above. I've driven a lot of miles in a variety of types of vehicles, and my opinion is that the average driver can not cope properly with any challenge at all. The vast majoroty of drivers drive the same car at the same times on the same roads and the same routes almost all of the time, and the moment they don't, such as weekends but especially holiday times, the casualty rates ramp right up.
EnglishTony said:
I am going to have to disagree with you, sorry, I'm not doing just to pass the time or because I like disagreeing with people.
There are other issues at play here. If these things are truly driverless, assuming you don't need to be sober to tell if where to go and notice when it's got it wrong and is taking you to your ex girlfriends rather than your current one's place, the more serious point is about insurance.
"Hello, my name is English Tony and I'd like to insure a driverless car please and yes I intend to get in it rat-arsed". That'll be a cost problem then.
Alternatively Elon Musk and his ilk as manufacturers will have to carry the Insurance burden. For a vehicle that takes unsupervised drunks from a to b. These costs will obviously be passed on to the customer.
In short, either you have to pay attention to what is going on (in which case you might as well drive) 'cos it's your insurance premium on the line or you pay a fortune to the manufacturer to cover their insurance costs and you might s well drive yourself and save the money.
Moving on, it is noticeable that you can use the gap between a car using one of those radar distance things and slide in front (which explains why 90% of drivers with this feature switch it off permanently after the first week). Imagine I am the only self driven car on the way home. I shall be able to queue jump the whole way and get home in half the time. Who wants to sit in a top of the range Merc being forced to give space to some scrote in a 20 year old car?
Which means you will have to ban self driven cars and that's going to go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
At the moment rat-arsed drivers are insured. Rat-arsed passengers are allowed to be carried, indeed there is a commercial model for doing so. (Taxis and public transport). So no difference.There are other issues at play here. If these things are truly driverless, assuming you don't need to be sober to tell if where to go and notice when it's got it wrong and is taking you to your ex girlfriends rather than your current one's place, the more serious point is about insurance.
"Hello, my name is English Tony and I'd like to insure a driverless car please and yes I intend to get in it rat-arsed". That'll be a cost problem then.
Alternatively Elon Musk and his ilk as manufacturers will have to carry the Insurance burden. For a vehicle that takes unsupervised drunks from a to b. These costs will obviously be passed on to the customer.
In short, either you have to pay attention to what is going on (in which case you might as well drive) 'cos it's your insurance premium on the line or you pay a fortune to the manufacturer to cover their insurance costs and you might s well drive yourself and save the money.
Moving on, it is noticeable that you can use the gap between a car using one of those radar distance things and slide in front (which explains why 90% of drivers with this feature switch it off permanently after the first week). Imagine I am the only self driven car on the way home. I shall be able to queue jump the whole way and get home in half the time. Who wants to sit in a top of the range Merc being forced to give space to some scrote in a 20 year old car?
Which means you will have to ban self driven cars and that's going to go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
Re your suggestion of chavvy driving - the driverless cars can police as well. You'll be filmed pulling out in front or pushing into a queue or whatever that causes another car to deviate or change speed, the penalty will be automatically processed and dispatched possibly before you get home.
Your driver licence may be automatically docked, and as you will have to insert a driver card into a device in your car every time you drive (a device easily incorporated into all vars, even old ones) you'll soon find that you aren't able to drive anything if you drive badly. All very easily done, I think.
The only real issue with insurance imo is that when it becomes clear that driverless cars are so much safer, will insurance companies want to to insure driven cars, or if so at what cost? It may be insurance that clears the old stuff of the roads (with their deluded drivers, possibly?).
AH33 said:
people talking about "freeing up time on the commute" in a self driving car don't seem to realise that your boss will want to give you things to do in that "free" time. It's not going to be full of people riding to work still asleep or riding home drunk while watching netflix.
But that's what people do on public transport right now.Some will check emails, most will fanny about on Facebook or whatever. Why would it be any different in a car?
rxe said:
but the "driver" has to be able to handle any situation, just as pretty much every human with a driving license can do.
There isn't much in your post that I wish to address, because I think all those issues will be addressed, and possibly already are apart from human frailty.The only bit I fundamentally disagree is the quote above. I've driven a lot of miles in a variety of types of vehicles, and my opinion is that the average driver can not cope properly with any challenge at all. The vast majoroty of drivers drive the same car at the same times on the same roads and the same routes almost all of the time, and the moment they don't, such as weekends but especially holiday times, the casualty rates ramp right up.
EnglishTony said:
I am going to have to disagree with you, sorry, I'm not doing just to pass the time or because I like disagreeing with people.
There are other issues at play here. If these things are truly driverless, assuming you don't need to be sober to tell if where to go and notice when it's got it wrong and is taking you to your ex girlfriends rather than your current one's place, the more serious point is about insurance.
"Hello, my name is English Tony and I'd like to insure a driverless car please and yes I intend to get in it rat-arsed". That'll be a cost problem then.
Alternatively Elon Musk and his ilk as manufacturers will have to carry the Insurance burden. For a vehicle that takes unsupervised drunks from a to b. These costs will obviously be passed on to the customer.
In short, either you have to pay attention to what is going on (in which case you might as well drive) 'cos it's your insurance premium on the line or you pay a fortune to the manufacturer to cover their insurance costs and you might s well drive yourself and save the money.
Moving on, it is noticeable that you can use the gap between a car using one of those radar distance things and slide in front (which explains why 90% of drivers with this feature switch it off permanently after the first week). Imagine I am the only self driven car on the way home. I shall be able to queue jump the whole way and get home in half the time. Who wants to sit in a top of the range Merc being forced to give space to some scrote in a 20 year old car?
Which means you will have to ban self driven cars and that's going to go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
At the moment rat-arsed drivers are insured. Rat-arsed passengers are allowed to be carried, indeed there is a commercial model for doing so. (Taxis and public transport). So no difference.There are other issues at play here. If these things are truly driverless, assuming you don't need to be sober to tell if where to go and notice when it's got it wrong and is taking you to your ex girlfriends rather than your current one's place, the more serious point is about insurance.
"Hello, my name is English Tony and I'd like to insure a driverless car please and yes I intend to get in it rat-arsed". That'll be a cost problem then.
Alternatively Elon Musk and his ilk as manufacturers will have to carry the Insurance burden. For a vehicle that takes unsupervised drunks from a to b. These costs will obviously be passed on to the customer.
In short, either you have to pay attention to what is going on (in which case you might as well drive) 'cos it's your insurance premium on the line or you pay a fortune to the manufacturer to cover their insurance costs and you might s well drive yourself and save the money.
Moving on, it is noticeable that you can use the gap between a car using one of those radar distance things and slide in front (which explains why 90% of drivers with this feature switch it off permanently after the first week). Imagine I am the only self driven car on the way home. I shall be able to queue jump the whole way and get home in half the time. Who wants to sit in a top of the range Merc being forced to give space to some scrote in a 20 year old car?
Which means you will have to ban self driven cars and that's going to go down like a lead balloon with the electorate.
Re your suggestion of chavvy driving - the driverless cars can police as well. You'll be filmed pulling out in front or pushing into a queue or whatever that causes another car to deviate or change speed, the penalty will be automatically processed and dispatched possibly before you get home.
Your driver licence may be automatically docked, and as you will have to insert a driver card into a device in your car every time you drive (a device easily incorporated into all vars, even old ones) you'll soon find that you aren't able to drive anything if you drive badly. All very easily done, I think.
The only real issue with insurance imo is that when it becomes clear that driverless cars are so much safer, will insurance companies want to to insure driven cars, or if so at what cost? It may be insurance that clears the old stuff of the roads (with their deluded drivers, possibly?).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff