STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
5 Huge Benefits of Self-Driving Cars
By The Daily Bell Staff - July 31, 2017

New technology can be scary. It certainly presents risks and challenges. But I have to admit, one technology I am very excited about is autonomous vehicles or self-driving cars.

We’ve talked about the potential for the Internet of Thing to leave us with nowhere to hide, and self-driving cars are part of that. We have also mused about the possibility of the government ruining self-driving cars.

But let’s take a moment to balance those positions with the benefits of autonomous vehicles.

First, it frees up so much valuable time for humans. Time is the most precious resource and morbidly limited. As many as 90% of working Americans drive a car to work. The average commute is about 25 minutes. This means an average American worker would get over 4 hours of their life back each week!

Granted, they would still be in a car, but most people have pressing tasks that can be accomplished on a smartphone or laptop. Over the course of a lifetime, this amounts to getting a full year of your life back, that would otherwise be spent flipping off other commuters, and beeping the horn in frustration. Nevermind that most people will use that year to scroll Facebook.

Second, way fewer people will die in car accidents. I know it is scary to let go of control, but automation of traffic patterns will lead to far fewer roadway fatalities. Currently, about 1.3 million people worldwide die each year in traffic accidents. Many more are seriously injured.

The possibility that cars will be hacked is scary. But seeing as this is a pressing concern for consumers, it would be very bad publicity for whatever company has their car taken over by hackers. So far no hacker has been able to do so in industry tests which reward hackers for finding vulnerabilities in their systems.

Also, most cars can already be hacked. It is much easier to make a murder look like an accident when humans are behind the wheel.

Third, economic resources that were once spent on cars and insurance will be freed up! Most people will not have to buy a car, they will simply use rideshare programs. The ones who do buy cars will likely have a much lower cost to insure the vehicle.

Fourth, we no longer have to worry about drunks, elderly, teen drivers, or distracted drivers. Think of all the social problems this immediately removes! No more debates about taking driver’s licenses away at a certain age. No more tweaking regulations and legislation in a fruitless attempt to curb teen accidents.

Go ahead and text in your car, talk on the phone, mess around with friends, and even crack open a beer! It doesn’t matter, the technology is in control.

In America, over 10,000 deaths per year from drunk driving accidents will be prevented when all cars on the road are self-driving.

Fifth, and possibly widely overlooked, is that autonomous vehicles really throw a wrench in most excuses for the police to engage you. Police can currently pull you over when driving for almost anything. If they see a taillight out, if you cross the center line, if you are driving a bit too fast, if you speed up for a yellow light, if you swerve, and so on and so forth.

Most people will be able to go from their own private property to the private property of a car. Then they will exit onto a business or individual’s private property, and never give the government a chance to violate their rights.

About 1.5 million people are arrested each year in the U.S. for Driving Under the Influence. Think of how much it costs taxpayers to send those people through the court system.

Then there are all the people arrested for drugs after the police search their vehicles during a traffic stop. Again, the court system is unburdened. Fewer rights will be violated. Fewer illegal searches will be conducted.

Cops will be safer since they won’t constantly be walking up to strangers in vehicles. People will be safer and not have to worry about being shot when a cop can’t see their hands for a split second. This removes entire swaths of dangerous interactions between the police and the public.

Autonomous vehicles might prove instrumental in changing the cultural acceptance of being stopped, questioned, and searched by officers for no real reason.

Like with any other new technology, there will be difficulties and unforeseen dangers to autonomous vehicles. But these five benefits only scratch the surface.

There will be changes in the landscape, social activity, and recreation. There will be new opportunities for shipping, selling, and conducting business.

What are you most worried or excited about for the advent of autonomous vehicles?

Tagged with: ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Oz

    I think this article was written by a self-driving toaster.

  • Rosicrucian32

    I see a lot of uninsured drivers on the road looking at their cell phones paid for by the previous administration. It will take another similar administration with another “stimulus package” before any of these hoopty driving citizens will consider picking up another car let alone one new enough to have autonomous function. The traffic patterns will be ghetto fabulous for decades to come unless they pass a law making human driving illegal. Can’t see that happening, the progressives would lose all their constituents if they did that. Heck you can’t even get them to approve arresting illegal immigrants committing crimes upon taxpayers. What chance is there of arresting uninsured, illegal, undocumented, non-tax paying drivers?

    • LawrenceNeal

      Non smart cars can be prohibited from using the roads the same way drinking and driving is prohibited, and much easier to detect. People without the means to purchase smart cars will have public transportation available to them.

      • Yeah, let “the government” take vital property from a huge portion of the population. That’s fair. And Constitutional. How generous of you to let the peasants use public transport.

        • LawrenceNeal

          The so-called ‘government’ is never fair or equitable. Most police hate the constitution. Any rights or belongings you think you have can be taken at any time using existing presidential orders. There are already laws against defective vehicles. ‘Government’ can do anything the regime decides it wants. Public transport is better than walking… Well, maybe.

        • LawrenceNeal

          (3) Most people will not have to buy a car, they will simply use rideshare programs.

          This is one of the best aspects. You can order transport to where you want to go, and when, and be grouped with other people along the route. This is the type of public transport that those who can’t afford private vehicles will benefit from.

      • Arrow

        Incorrect. Who has authority to prohibit any means of travel from using the roads?

        It is well settled that the public are entitled to a free passage along the highway. Michelsen v. Dwyer, 63 N.W.2d 513, 517, 158 Neb. 427 (1954)

        Our society is built in part upon the free passage of men and goods, and the public streets and highways may rightfully be used for travel by everyone. Hanson v. Hall, 202 Minn. 381, 383.

        Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually termed “highways” or “public roads,” and are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71 Cal. 62.

        It is well-settled law that every member of the public has the right to use the public roads in a reasonable manner for the promotion of his health and happiness. Sumner County v. interurban Transp. Co., 141 Tenn. 493, 500.

        • Unless of course the citizen is deemed to be a danger to the rest of the peasants. I believe that being caught texting should be a lifetime ban on driving — maybe even walking on public thoroughfares….

          • Arrow

            Interesting choice of words. Why are you a citizen? How did you become a citizen? Was it by choice? Were you of age when you made that choice? I know this is going a bit deep, but that’s what they’ve done. By obfuscating intent and words (why are there law dictionaries) they’ve craftily made “citizens” subjects through their codes, statutes, and regulation. Codes, statutes, and regulations are not law. The legal union does not speak English, they speak legaleze and Latin. Comprehend what Bill Clinton was doing when he asked for their definition of “it”?

            It appears that what you are saying by “deemed to be a danger” is that some governmental organization, be it the black robed cult, bureaucracy, agency, statute, code, or other fictional spirit or character has lawful authority to determine that you are dangerous. This is true if you choose to be subject to their criminal whims.

            Government was “created” of, by and for the people. To repeat, man created government and is the higher authority… the “author”. Please, let that sink in. What has changed that would make man subject to government? Legally… man is subject to their codes and regulations because he is a “citizen” subject. Period. That’s it. It’s not rocket science.

            Their problem is, legal is not lawful. The feds have no jurisdiction except for commerce. The best way to shut-down any unlawful action or other unwarranted allegation is to challenge jurisdiction. The lower courts do not have the authority to even make a ruling, and the courts of higher authority know they have no jurisdiction. You are the “creator” so YOU are the higher authority. They can arrest and imprison you because they have hired guns… until they are forced to answer for their crimes. You can choose to live in fear… or not. Good day.

        • LawrenceNeal

          Who has authority to prohibit any means of travel from using the roads?

          The regime has existing presidential orders that cover anything you can think of, including seizing control of roadways, and all resources.

          There are already requirements for sober drivers, hands free cellphones, seat belts and airbags. Adding driverless equipment is just another regulation.

          • Arrow

            How do presidential orders have any authority over you? You can live in fear of their hired guns “enforcing” those order through a whole host of unlawful activities (18 USC 241 & 242 come to mind), or you can peacefully refuse to comply. The so-called “requirements” have no lawful basis. To the contrary:
            “No state may convert a right into a privilege and require a license or fee for the exercise of that right” See: Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105

            “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)

            “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)

            “. . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)

            In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

      • Might be the best unintended answer! 🙂

      • Rosicrucian32

        How will they do this without being called, racist, sexist, a bigot, anti-muslim, anti-black, anti- white, anti-poor, anti-auntie? Look in New York they can’t stop illegals from harassing taxpayers and tourists for cash because they have been told to stand down. DeBalsio wants them left alone. Now you think they will try to arrest illegals, poor people, and minorities from driving because they cannot afford an autonomous vehicle? P’Shaw….you will be buying one for them before that happens my optimistic friend.
        The newest generation of adults (in name only) have taken to litigation on EVERYTHING if they don’t get their way. Look at what is going on in congress. I get what your saying, my comment is that there is no way they will get it enacted, not that there isn’t a way to prevent. As for drinking and driving my friend, an intoxilyzer interlock like what is adjudicated to those convicted of DWI could be installed on ALL cars preventing drunk driving until time immemorial. There is too much money to be had in the justice system with such crimes for them to do that. Jail, probation, fines, counseling, 2nd, 3rd, and felonious offenses. 100’s of thousands of dollars would be lost every week if that went away.
        Just Sayin’ – it ain’t the pragmatists war, it is the elitist’s, and the politician’s war. Stop using logic, all it will do is frustrate you.

  • Joe, I don’t see why you are pushing this incredibly dystopian nightmare technocratic plan. You don’t see the risk in “the government” knowing everywhere that everyone goes 24/7/365? Do you anticipate with glee having computers deciding how you will be traveling when traffic is difficult? Do you think that computing can be so robust as to avoid catastrophic failures? Do you know what algorithms will go into your car’s computer to decide who is sacrificed in unavoidable crash situations? Can any computer compete with a competent driver who is paying attention and driving defensively? What if some Technocrat decides that the cars in a given area must be turned off for “reasons of State?” Finally, if people no longer need to pay attention to drive, wouldn’t this be eliminating one of the last areas of public life where people have to be aware in the present moment at all?

    • LawrenceNeal

      The lives and mutilations saved might be worth the government intrusion. As with UPS flow charts, computer guided traffic shouldn’t be difficult. In the event of failures the cars would stop. Valuable government officials would of course be given priority over regular citizens. Although, with direction, velocity and spacing controlled, there should be no unavoidable collisions. How many drivers are actually competent, pay attention, drive defensively and not given to temper? Very few, actually, I think.

      • Arrow

        Larry, while I have a certain appreciation for your calling attention to the varying oversights and errors, e.g., do/due, I’m unclear as to what you are advocating. Who would determine for you, what might be worth government intrusion? For brtanner… for me? All of which, by their will, the government exists

        “Computer guided traffic shouldn’t be difficult” unless of course they are working on an interstate and arbitrarily eliminate one lane with concrete barriers as they did in Dallas/Ft. Worth which caused a Tesla that was on autopilot to kiss the concrete. I stayed in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area in 1982-3 and they were working on the highways then… and now, in 2017, they still have the highway system screwed-up, but worse. It’s constant. Travel much? We drove from Oklahoma to Philadelphia last year and the interstate system was a mess in St. Louis… worse in Pennsylvania. There’s much work to be done to achieve a highway system that would accommodate self-driving cars. I would advocate that it is neither economically feasible, nor practical.

        What government official is valuable enough to warrant priority over the people? They are public servants. Is the business of the State more valuable than the private business of the men/women that the State exists to serve?

        “With trajectory, velocity and spacing controlled, there should be no unavoidable collisions”. Interesting theory. The key word here is “should”. Until it could be determined that there will be no unavoidable collisions, the technology is not ready for prime time.

        I expect that you “are actually competent, pay attention, drive defensively and not given to temper.” I choose not to drive, but travel, as driving is a commercial endeavor. Driver – One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902, Black’s Law Dictionary. I’ll include a few court rulings for your enjoyment;

        “No state may convert a right into a privilege and require a license or fee for the exercise of that right” See: Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105

        “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)

        “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)

        “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958)

        “If a state does erroneously require a license or fee for exercise of what that right, the Citizen may ignore the license and/or fee and exercise the right with total impurity” See: Schuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 U.S. 262

        • LawrenceNeal

          Who would determine what might be worth government intrusion?

          The so-called ‘government’, of course. Intrusion is inevitable.

          Hopefully, highway work would be programmed in to the transport management software. Of course, as with the rail system, which is what the smart highway would resemble, there’s always human negligence.

          What government official is valuable enough to warrant priority over the people?

          I was being sarcastic. Seriously, if the regime is deciding priorities, they will choose to save themselves.

          Until it could be determined that there will be no unavoidable collisions, the technology is not ready for prime time.

          Agreed. This is all future fantasy at this time. Much to be done on infrastructure and computing capability, if it’s even possible. What kind of computer would be required to control and direct hundreds of thousands of vehicles at the same time?

          I expect that you “are actually competent, pay attention, drive defensively and not given to temper.”

          I was a helicopter door gunner in Vietnam for four years, and an adrenaline fuelled road warrior on the freeways of Northern California for ten years. I’m exactly the kind of person that shouldn’t be in control of a vehicle. I chose to stop driving when I moved to Thailand 22 years ago. Best decision I ever made, for myself and others.

          Travel much?

          No, I try to avoid it. During my 14 years in Thailand, I went on visa renewal trips to Cambodia every four months, and a yearly trip to visit my parents in Atlanta. The last 8 years in Colombia, I visit my mother once a year. I don’t drive at all, walk most places. I live in a two story, 200 sq meter penthouse, and it’s just too comfortable to stay at home.

          The Golden Gate Bridge was once closed to traffic, both ways, because Vice President Al Gore crossed it. That goes to the right to use statutes. The regime does anything it wants.

          • “Who would determine what might be worth government intrusion?.. The so-called ‘government’, of course. Intrusion is inevitable.”

            Wow, OK I get it: No (lawful) jurisdiction or due process required. “Resistance is Futile.” Just bend over and grab those ankles.

      • Thanks for the music.Now the choir can all join in. Nothing wrong with a little totalitarianism. Think of the lives saved…

        • LawrenceNeal

          We already live in a police state, if you haven’t noticed. Police murder unarmed citizens, are given a free pass, paid vacation, and promotion. Politicians ignore the constitution. Governors rule by decree and close highways for political agendas (Christie). Political parties discriminate against one candidate to favor another. Mandating safe transport to save lives and injuries is not totalitarianism.

          • @LawrenceNeal – So, the situation in the U.S. is approaching totalitarianism, but we should just allow the Technocratic State to go ahead and mandate crucially repressive measures? – Not too logical.

            BTW, this is not “safe transport to save lives.” That is just the “solution” (as in problem-reaction-solution) that our owners set out to “bring” to us from the outset. The real purpose is control. Is this what you want for your children, grand-kids and future generations? I’m guessing Yes.

            This is beyond the consideration that you seem to be proposing the destructing of significant remaining wealth of the people at a time when the socialist model is already collapsing the world economies at lightspeed. We cannot now, nor in the foreseeable future, afford the necessary infrastructure to implement our further enslavement.

    • James Clander

      Totally agree. This article is completely stupid in 2017 ! Maybe 2100 and thank Dog I’ll never see that.

    • LawrenceNeal

      You don’t see the risk in “the government” knowing everywhere that everyone goes 24/7/365?

      We’re already close to that with traffic monitoring cameras, license plate and facial recognition. In London, a pedestrian can be followed along their entire route.

      ‘Government’ wants to know everything about everyone, all the time.

  • Clayton Smith

    The promised benefits referred to above, require a level of accuracy and efficiently that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently incapable of, unless every car is self driving and they are driving on a road, which we might call an intelligent highway. This is do to the problem of discerning object from function. It is a phenomenological issue arising from the relationship of existence and meaning. Not even the most sophisticated probabilistic algorithmic systems are likely to ever overcome this impasse. At a point in time, it will require that only self-driving vehicles will be able to drive on the intelligent highways. This presents a very big political issue, given that all the roads are paid for by gasoline taxes, something all of us have to pay. It means more than a tollroad but a prohibition roadway. Firetrucks, police cars and emergency vehicles of all sorts would have to comply. This is not to say that attempts will be made and will have some limited success, such as parking and emergency stopping, as well as notification features, like your getting too close to something you need not to, or vehicles approaching from either the left the right or the right rear of your direction of motion. Some will be welcomed, some will not.

    • LawrenceNeal

      ” This is do to the problem of discerning object from function. It is a phenomenological issue” Anyone who can use the word ‘phenomenological’ can use the word ‘due’.

      • Clayton Smith

        Thanks for the correction. Time to get a pair of reading glasses.

  • autonomous

    Very ineresting, and also stupid. The same people programming cars as those designing cars and creating absurd traffic patterns should scare you to death. brtanner bellow points out some of the hazzards. AI is all artificial and no human intelligence.

    • LawrenceNeal

      I believe that traffic engineers are demons from hell sent to torment us.

  • Centurian

    Brings new meaning to “The Blue Screen of Death!”

  • john mcginnis

    1) You won’t get the 4 hours back. By law you will still be required to ‘monitor the car’ not sit there reading the book. And I would surmise that the auto makers will still include a brake mechanism just to cover their own legal a$$. (“But he did not apply the brake your honor so my client is absolved!”)

    2) Don’t tell that to the individuals injured by Tesla vehicles. The jury is still out on the safety record of autonomous vehicles.

    3) This is an issue of peak load. The savings will only occur if companies permit flextime. Otherwise, the owner will demand the vehicle during the peak commuting hour and will not release it till they have arrived at work/home. I also doubt insurance rates will decrease. Once a vehicle is added ‘for hire’ it is a commercial vehicle with commiserate commercial insurance rates. Expect insurance in that category to rise higher.

    4) Here there is the possibility for saving lives as the author states. I doubt however that popping a beer will be legal because of (1). You will still be legally required to be in control of the vehicle.

    5) Actually I don’t think that will happen. The munis NEED that cash so they won’t change their habits. We know that by how red light cameras work. They bill the registrant regardless of who is driving. But it does bring up an interesting scenario. If Google or Tesla is the registrant do they get the red light bill or the driver? So far that has not been tested in court but it will be.

    By the way Tesla already has terms in their contract of purchase that the ‘owner’ is prohibited from use of the vehicle for rideshare without their consent.

  • RED

    Another Simplistic and Naïve vision of “Utopia”.

    Give up all of your Rights and Responsibilities to the government and you will be oh so much safer and you will be able to devote your time to more lofty endeavors.

    Why not let the government keep you in a padded cell and feed you intravenously?
    Doesn’t get much safer than that! You will have all the time you need to engage in even more self indulgent speculation while you are overly enamored with the thrill of certain technology. But…… hmmmmmmm…….why even be “alive”! The technology probably doesn’t need you by this point anyway!

    • Hey You

      That time is coming. The operation of the world will not need human oversight. YOU ARE NO LONGER NEEDED!

  • Goldcoaster

    Yeah, I think I’ll go buy that 911 so it can drive itself. at 65 mph.
    Right.

  • Praetor

    No! Just BS. More technology, more that could go wrong at the wrong time. GPS, laser range finders, radar, just name a few. I’m driving down the road, in a few particular areas my very technical radio all of a sudden goes haywire. No at this time this technology is not for today’s street scene, may be 100/150 years from now.

    Look at the Airplanes and you can see how you would have to drive. No laid back beer drinking reading a book BS. Monitor all car systems all the time while in motion, that would be more intense than driving, just think of a pilot. Scan the horizon monitor all systems and then in an emergency be ready to take control at a moments notice. Way more intense driving, if you ask me.

    Just think you are out in the middle of nowhere on road that is straight as an arrow for 90 miles and you want to go 100 miles an hour, but the sign says 65. the machine tells you it is 65, you are over the limit. Get to the next town and you are in a line of 6 other vehicles, the cop gets to you, ‘Sir you’re vehicle has informed us you were driving 35/45 miles over the speed limit and we received video of you asleep will you’re vehicle was in control, now you have a ticket for over 5000 dollars or more.

    No think you, Commies.!!!

    • LawrenceNeal

      “will you’re vehicle was in control” ‘While’
      “No think you” ‘Thank’

      • Praetor

        Are you becoming a nanny LawrenceNeal. I’m thinking you’re your name Is Lawrence Neal. The cap is missing or that is someones name that lives on this planet. It is just a comment section.!!!

        • LawrenceNeal

          Yeah, a grammar policeman.

  • Praetor

    Does the vehicle wash itself. All that dirt on the road, salt put down for snowy icy weather, technology doesn’t like dirt, out doors there is a lot of dirt. What the vehicle tells you, sorry do to weather conditions, you must use mass transit today. Yeah, just because you ‘THINK’ you can do it doesn’t mean do it.!!!

    • LawrenceNeal

      “sorry do to weather conditions”b ‘Due’.

      • Hey You

        Due: Some amount or material which is owed.

        • Praetor

          I’m thinking the heat where I live, out moving irrigation pipes around, I my have gotten heat exhaustion. But think may be Lawrence was drinking. Proof reading is tedious.!!!

  • LawrenceNeal

    “about 1.3 million people worldwide day each year in traffic accidents” Proofread, much? The i key is far from the a key, the y key is two keys away from the e key. ‘Staff’ must have thought they had a self driving word processor and been thinking about other things.

  • LawrenceNeal

    Smart cars on a smart highway would be something like a train on chess. All moves would be preprogrammed from the start. Considering the tremendous loss of life and property resulting from humans at the wheel, I think it’s inevitable. By the time the highways are converted, technology will be more advanced.

  • jabdip

    I agree with Eric Peters (https://www.ericpetersautos.com/) that there will be automatic cars on the road. They won’t be truly autonomous as someone will have to control them. Unfortunately, that someone will most likely be Big Brother who will “allow” us to go where they approve when they approve of us going. Maybe.

    And considering the dependency of law enforcement agencies on civil asset forfeiture for funding, LEOs will most likely have devices to override the car’s controls so a search of the vehicle can be made at their convenience.

    As a motorcycle rider I’m not real anxious to test the theory that automatic cars will be able to “see” us and act accordingly. I’m also not real anxious to put myself into a situation where a LEO or other government zombie could stop my vehicle and keep me locked inside of it.

    Rather pessimistic, I know, but if there’s a way to abuse technology the State will take advantage.

  • Justice League

    “The road to hell” is paved with good intentions.

  • Nexusfast123

    Utopia..ha, ha. More like more government controls and tax through the imposition of a virtual toll road network as they will be able to track everywhere you go. If this happens without a holistic transport strategy then public transport will collapse and the roads will be gridlocked.

  • Tsigantes

    As a European it seems to me that self driving cars are one of those answers based on the wrong question…what about efficient and comprehensive public transport instead?

  • georgesilver

    I like the idea.
    6th. When there are too many useless people they can have a mass lemming event and drive them over a cliff.
    7th When tax is due and you haven’t paid you go straight to jail.

  • georgesilver

    I almost forgot.
    8th Once you pass a certain age the car will fill with gas and you will be transported to the nearest incinerator

  • georgesilver

    Joking aside. Knowing how governments and the “authorities” work it would then become illegal to travel (even walking) outside your home. without a special license. You would be forced to use this form of transport everywhere. If a certain area or place fell out of favour for whatever reason automatic vehicles would not be able to enter it. Constant advertisements and propaganda would be continually played as you travelled.
    You would be giving your freedom of movement over to the state.

  • Alan777

    Self driving cars are just another step on the road to a complete loss of individual liberty. There are plenty of ways to make cars safe without making them driverless. As well, the highway system and traffic management could be improved greatly from its current state.

  • Erik Garcés

    One effect would be the drain on many municipal coffers. Good! New York City for example extorts over $500 million annually from parking fines. With an autonomous vehicle, instead of parking, you’d just set the car to drive around until you call it back and you’d never have to park it. Neither would such a driverless car get speeding tickets.

    To hell with government.

    • Hey You

      Some governments are of value. Can’t think of any offhand, but if they weren’t, why would there be any?

  • BrettonWoods

    You must be joking. Is this article satire, a socialist collectivist’s dream? These type cars can be hacked, and they are perfect for the system to control citizen’s movements.

  • Richard

    Its all about CONTROL. The powers that be will use safety as the lure but control is what its all about.

loading