> 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.
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.
Why not just make tons of public transit at that point using the level 5 tech instead and cut traffic?
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.
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.