[krapp]

The temptation for abuse seems too great to me. You have to tell a third party (or multiple - the government, law enforcement, your employer, your insurer possibly, or anyone who signs up for the inevitable Google app which plots your driving history) where you want to go and now they not only know who you are, but where you're going and where you've been. Someone else has complete control over the software which determines whether or not you get there (assuming these cars don't have some sort of manual override).

Yes, currently large aircraft operate more or less the same way (and everything is fine until something happens and the pilot realizes they don't actually know how to fly a plane because they've never had to). But people won't be taking planes to the store, or to work (for the most part) or the voting booth or to the hospital or police station or an AA meeting. The intersection of surveillance with physical restriction seems too much. I've got nothing against the technology, I just don't want to see it in widespread adoption. I don't want people in general to become trained to ask permission from black boxes to take them where they want to go.

Though I readily concede I probably seem like someone railing against the evils of the Web in the 90s, since a lot of people on HN think they're brilliant and probably a few actually work on them. It just seems very Orwellian to me.

[mrfusion]

That's a good point. In fact didn't a large city turn off its transit service before a planned protest? (I think I remember hearing about that a few years ago.)

I guess in the future the gov could shut down self driving cars going to a planned protest location in the name of safety, etc.

[malandrew]

While far slower, touring bikes are still an option. I also doubt that motorcycles are going anywhere anytime soon.