[closetnerd]

I think the reason you're confused is because you're under the impression that people are arguing against the very obvious practical benefits of having only self driving cars: congestion, safety, etc. This is obvious to everyone.

However, there are other human concerns. I personally enjoy driving. I often go on drives where I'm simply exploring, not knowing which turn I might take next. It's my personal belief that driving is not just my privilege, but my right. If you want a self driving car, you're well within your rights to do as I am to drive my self.

Moreover, there's a huge scope of privacy issues and increased amount of control being put in the government. I am one of those individuals who is inherently distrusting of government policies that can restrict us under the guise of safety, etc.

[matthewmacleod]

However, there are other human concerns. I personally enjoy driving. I often go on drives where I'm simply exploring, not knowing which turn I might take next. It's my personal belief that driving is not just my privilege, but my right. If you want a self driving car, you're well within your rights to do as I am to drive my self.

That's an interesting concern – I suppose we end up, like with most issues of public policy, trying to draw a balance. I imagine it's much like gun control: while most gun owners are going to be responsible, that damage that can be caused by those who aren't means that many jurisdictions prefer to restrict firearm ownership.

Moreover, there's a huge scope of privacy issues and increased amount of control being put in the government. I am one of those individuals who is inherently distrusting of government policies that can restrict us under the guise of safety, etc.

Sure, and there's good reason for that. The privacy issue is orthogonal and must be set to one side (though it's legitimate).

How would you feel about a move to regulate non-autonomous vehicle ownership more closely? Driver licensing could become much more rigorous, for example. Combined with the essential outlawing of non-autonomous vehicles in urban centres (almost inevitable in the long run), that would ideally assuage most safety concerns while still allowing people the freedom to drive.

[closetnerd]

> How would you feel about a move to regulate non-autonomous vehicle ownership more closely? Driver licensing could become much more rigorous, for example.

I'm very much in favor of a far more thorough practical driver training programs before being licensed. The issue is less with people not knowing their theory as apposed to not being capable drivers. I think we should model our own driving training programs closer to Finland's for example.

In California, at least, the training, the theory, the test itself is a complete joke. It's the definitive example of bureaucratic incompetence.

However, I'm not in favor of a rigorous licensing program which simply aims to dissuade one from obtaining a license because of various background checks, fingerprinting, paper work, and encyclopedic knowledge of vague and obscure laws.

> Combined with the essential outlawing of non-autonomous vehicles in urban centres (almost inevitable in the long run), that would ideally assuage most safety concerns while still allowing people the freedom to drive.

I'm extremely skeptical and, on the whole, against this. This is exactly where lawmakers would find gray enough lines to outlaw humans drivers from the majority of road networks from laws that give the impression that only a handful of metropolitan cities would initially be effected.

[panglott]

The right to travel is a very ancient right, from a time when people only walked, rode horses, or used draft animals to travel. The introduction of mechanical vehicles in the late 19th century changed things.

Especially, motor vehicles are so uniquely hazardous to their operators, passengers, and bystanders than operating them quickly became a privilege, not a right. http://www.bicyclelaw.com/road-rights/a.cfm/road-rights-cycl...

[closetnerd]

I did say that "my personal belief" is that it is my right?

Not sure what your point is since I'm not going to disagree that from the perspective of the law it is not my right.

[fricken4]

Mobility should be a right, driving shouldn't be a right. If someone is too old, too young, too poor, disabled, or otherwise unable to drive, and unfortunate enough to live in a car dependent area (as most inhabited areas are) then their rights are being infringed upon by your driving and others. For most of those who are victims of vehicle accidents- which number in the millions annually- what about their rights? Most of them did not cause the accident- they were passengers, other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians etc.

[dagw]

I can't see a ban coming anytime soon, but I can see self-driving cars only roads. If you really want to/have to drive yourself feel free to take the 40-50 mph speed limit side roads. Or you can take engage the auto-drive and hop onto the speed limit free express way.