[bittermang]

We haven't even begun.

Gearheads will refuse to let go of their cars. They love driving and maintaining their vehicle. They'll argue that no robot can drive better than they can, no matter how wrong they are.

Imagine a world where police no longer pull you over for speeding, running red lights, or other traffic infractions. The legal fight will be huge, as those easy revenue sources suddenly disappear.

There are hundreds of more fights and scenarios like this we haven't even begun to imagine, that will tie up progress in the courts for decades.

We're going to need a concentrated force focusing on this tech as the next thing we are going to do, and able to get out in front of these issues. Right now, I see autonomous driving as a thing that a few groups are seriously working on, while everyone else takes a passive stance, or dips their toes into the idea as a passing fancy and not a serious milestone to tackle. We need to move it past a novel toy, and in to a serious undertaking that we all need to be vested in shaping the future of.

Because in my opinion, the automobile is the most efficient and prolific human killing machine we have ever invented. I feel autonomous driving is a step toward fixing that issue.

[toss1]

Actually, as someone who loves to drive and race (& has won regional championships in road racing, ice racing, autocross, karting), I can't wait for self-driving L5 cars to become the norm.

Driving on the public roads has long since ceased to be much fun. Traffic density is ever-increasing. The average drivers' skill level has deteriorated noticeably and their distraction level has increased such that 60% of them might as well be actively trying to kill you. Meanwhile the guys with the blue lights have much denser coverage.

Occasionally, far from the cities, I manage to find a brief stretch of fun, but they are ever more scarce. I've also given up my road bike and stick to mountain biking. And my observations aren't unique among those I know.

At this point, I'd much rather just be able to hop in my car and read as it gets me to my destination. Save the fun driving for the racetracks or off-road.

And yes, the loss of revenue to the Police Depts who spend their time catching the easy to measure infractions instead of the ones who actually create hazards will be delicious.

[purvis]

> Imagine a world where police no longer pull you over for speeding, running red lights, or other traffic infractions.

In that world, I can also imagine people modding their autonomous cars in ways which would still violate traffic laws.

[tyingq]

"Imagine a world where police no longer pull you over for speeding, running red lights, or other traffic infractions"

That's an interesting point I hadn't heard before. Are there stats for what kind of revenue various little cities, counties, etc, in the US are generating with speed traps, red light cameras, and similar tactics? Those tactics obviously lose to self driving cars.

[shaki-dora]

No, it’s just the most boring conspiracy theory ever.

There are a few hamlets out west where the local sheriff and justice-of-peace got into the business of modern highway robbery, extracting fines from unsuspecting travelers. For other cities, fines aren’t nearly as significant as people love to think.

Case in point: fines make up $140 million of LA’s $9 billion budget. That’s 1.5%.

That’s not even factoring all the positive changes, financially and otherwise, cities will see from autonomy: parking can happen off-site, freeing up two lanes on a typical street for pedestrians, bikes, or public transport. Smart algorithms can make far more efficient use of existing infrastructure, reducing the need for construction and maintenance. Fewer accidents means less need for emergency response...

[tyingq]

Stats from a small town with a large highway would be more convincing.

Like..."Palmer wrote 1,080 speeding and warning tickets last month alone, according to city administrator Doug Young. The city has just 2,023 residents". (https://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/06/04/in-a-few-small-texa...)

[bittermang]

That's an interesting point I hadn't heard before.

Exactly.

Because why would they? Why would we even need speed limits, if the computer it in control and proven safe at X speed, because it has a Y reaction time vs a human's Z reaction time.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Well, reaction time is not all you need to drive safely. You also -and in fact, first- need to be able to generate the right reactions. Otherwise, you'll just end up reacting in the wrong way very quickly. And causing accidents very quickly.

In fact, if you have an autonomous vehicle with the wrong reactions and very short reaction times, it will pose a much greater risk to agents with slower but safer reactions (like humans, or just safer auto-cars) who won't be able to get out of its way fast enough.

[planteen]

One good reason is speed limits lead to noise control.

[yur83838]

people still need to cross roads

[jhall1468]

Waymo's car stops at crosswalks when people are on waiting.

[GarrisonPrime]

Another problem, then:

If people see a vehicle has stopped for them to cross, they oftenbassume it's safe for them to cross. Unfortunately they are then less attentive to see if other lanes are following suit.

Pedestrians are constantly being hit in my "friendly" town where the culture has people stop for pedestrians even if the vehicle has right of way. But then the stopped vehicle blocks the view of another car in a neighboring lane, which keeps on coming.

[jhall1468]

Not a problem. That's not even a niche case and would be easy to train. The simple examples you're coming up with are the 99% situations that are readily trainable and have been. Literally the only thing stopping Waymo from production is the 1%... the situations that are so niche and unique that the Waymo AI hasn't seen them.

[bluntfang]

autonomous vehicles will create revenue holes and mass unemployment. It is a scary proposition for non-tech futurists.