[hyperman1]

What's missing in this analysis is everything not a car or pedestrian. Bikes, scooters, ... So this vision can't become truth. Now I understand these are rare in the US, so maybe you're from over there?

My guess is we'll establish a maximum speed allowed to drive for humans, say 30km/h up to 50km/h. Speeds above this are reserved for robotic drivers, outside inhabited zones. Some of these roads are vehicle only, like we have E- routes in the EU or I-routes in the US. Here, non human traffic is forbidden. Then there are the secondary routes, where high speed should be robot-only and robots have to take care for other traffic. Roads can have markings adapted for easy optical recognition, but driverless cars are required to drive safely without them.

Eye contact with a driver does not at all make it safe to cross a street, as current death toll proves.

[noduerme]

er. I don't cross in front of a car unless I make eye ccontact and know they see me. This has so far kept me alive, although it's certainly not foolproof.

You're right, the bicyclists will likely ruin the possibility of total automation for the self-driving fans. I hadn't thought about that. Two clashing visions of a testicle-less utopia. Both entirely devoted to their vision of different worlds in which no one dares take a big machine themselves and drive it down a road without permission.

If it comes to the point where you cannot drive your own car on the highway without computers in it, then you have no freedom of mobility. Your most basic right as a human is gone and your children will grow up in a world where they don't know they have a natural right to go places without asking permission. The only people who will go wherever they please without asking permission will be the people who sold you that technology and who captured the regulatory process to make it required by law.