| Where is the middle ground? In the self-driving car debate, I only see the extremes of the positions. Surely it will end in a compromise. I own two classic cars (well, one of them will be soon enough). By virtue of their age, they are obviously not self-driving and never will be. But I hope to have them in my possession 30-40 years from now, because I like them very much. I believe I like driving, because I only do it for fun. I either take the train or bike to work, depending on the weather, so I am not beholding to my cars. Hence why I don't own a modern car. I recognise that my position is unique, but I would sad to lose my ability to drive my cars on the road (and my collection may grow in the future). I understand people's desire for self-driving cars, and I'm glad if they get them. As long as I can drive my old-timey cars. Indeed, once there are more electric cars than petrol powered cars on the roads, getting petrol will be harder. But that's OK, as long as it's still possible. My position is; I may not personally need self-driving cars, but I respect others' desire to want them. But articles like this make me cringe, I hope I don't need to explain why. |
The way I see it is that once self-driving cars are safe and viable, anytime an accident involving a human and a self-driving car happens, the human is automatically assigned fault. It doesn't restrict your freedom to drive the car, it just makes you think twice since liability is against you should an accident happen.
This of course, assumes that self-driving cars are capable of driving perfectly within existing driving laws. If that is true, there's no way a self-driving car could legally be at-fault for an accident.