[toomuchtodo]

> If you're going to go down that route (no pun intended), why not eventually ban everything but officially certified driverless cars from public roads?

I agree. That's the way its going to go. People kill 40K/people a year in the US simply driving, and injure/maim hundreds of thousands. There's no way self-driving cars aren't better than that.

Want to build your vroom vroom car? Own the entire stack down to the atoms? You'll get to drive it at track day at a track, not on a public road.

> Personally, I prefer the latter even if it means I could get killed at any moment because the risk is all part of the experience; not only of driving but really just life itself.

Agree, but that sentiment will die a slow death over the next few decades, just as those fond of the horse and buggy are no longer with us.

[c22]

There likely exists a larger stockpile of fairly well-engineered manually driven cars than there were buggies during the advent of the automobile. This existing stock will likely buffer the robotic revolution of our roads somewhat. Also, I think the convenience delta from self-driven car to "driverless" car is smaller than that from keeping living horses to regular maintenance of an automobile.

[toomuchtodo]

> Also, I think the convenience delta from self-driven car to "driverless" car is smaller than that from keeping living horses to regular maintenance of an automobile.

The number of teenagers with driver's licenses is the lowest in history. Compound that with the 65+ cohort aging quickly, and older drivers being dangerous drivers (lower reaction time).

It's not a convenience delta. Its an experience and safety delta. We are talking tens of billions (if not more) of dollars in savings from taking the human out of the loop.

[tclmeelmo]

> The number of teenagers with driver's licenses is the lowest in history.

The value of such a statistic is questionable given that the minimum age for a license has increased of late.

[toomuchtodo]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/19/drivers-...

http://time.com/money/4185441/millennials-drivers-licenses-g...

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/11/466178523/like-millennials-mor...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/14/the-m...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0120/Why-are-Mi...

[tclmeelmo]

From your first link: "Getting a driver's license after turning 16 years old has become a lengthier process in recent years, as regulators instituted more safety hurdles. That has also led to a sharp decline in teenagers who are driving."

That said, this is going sideways because I didn't make a complete and clear post originally. Never mind.

[ryandrake]

> People kill 40K/people a year in the US simply driving, and injure/maim hundreds of thousands.

Not true. People kill 40K people by crashing their cars into them, not by "simply driving". Make crashing your car into people illegal and punish that. No reason to ban driving.

[m4x]

> Make crashing your car into people illegal and punish that. No reason to ban driving.

Except that people don't crash their cars deliberately, it's unintentional and unavoidable.

There's no point making it illegal to do something that only happens accidentally. People will still do it accidentally.

The only thing you can do is mandate changes to the system which remove the possibility that those mistakes will be made. Driverless cars are one possible change that we could make.

[colejohnson66]

> There's no point making it illegal to do something that only happens accidentally. People will still do it accidentally.

And people can still speed unintentionally by forgetting to check the speedometer every so often, but speeding is still illegal.

Not stopping at a stop sign or red light for a right turn is illegal, but people often times make "California Stops" unintentionally.