See earlier note about the public not accepting autonomous vehicles while they make errors humans consider nonsensical. The actual aggregated stats don't matter. The logic doesn't matter. All that matters is the video of a self-driving car veering off course suddenly and slamming into a school or bumping a pedestrian at high speed on video. It won't matter that no kids got hurt or that the pedestrian survived with minor injuries.
It will feel more dangerous and untrustworthy, and that has always been more than enough to kill a promising solution in this country.
If we can overcome that and actually follow the numbers instead of our guts, we won't need most of the cars in the first place—autonomous or otherwise—because the numbers say mass transit is the better option on all metrics: economic, environmental, safety, land use, etc. Cars are at best a backfill option.
The general public doesn't have to accept anything because they still have a choice to use whatever car they want. It's only the drunk drivers being forced in those evil autonomous cars, and they would have otherwise killed themselves/others anyways if left on their own. And then over time the safety numbers, convenience and more will speak for themselves and convince you to switch.
>> But what’s the point? Why do individuals need level 5 cars?
Because there are places that public transit will never cover? I've been places in the American West that are 50+ miles from the nearest paved road, stop sign, or restroom. I don't think they're getting bus or train service any time soon.
No, but you could have public-rideshare in some of these places.
Level 4+ cars may be quite expensive for some time. Operating costs of L4+ vehicles will likely be low compared to human-driven vehicles (counting the cost of the driver). So, it could lead to car sharing in situations where we don't accept it currently.
> that are 50+ miles from the nearest paved road, stop sign, or restroom.
US population density is lower than most of the developed world, but what you describe is a tiny share of miles driven and can be effectively ignored for now.
Ah, you’re correct I did miss that. I’m not sure how I’d feel about a federally mandated solution like this… but I have to admit, it’s A SOLUTION to an otherwise big problem.
> and you have to use an autonomous car
The idea being you use this hypothetical level 5 autonomous vehicle instead of the ones that let you be a dipshit.
Anyway, we already revoke peoples’ licenses for drunk driving and we do it in the areas you’re referring to.