> not an obvious need for autonomous vehicles
We've grown numb to it, but 40,000 US traffic fatalities is an obvious need.
We've grown numb to it, but 40,000 US traffic fatalities is an obvious need.
the main argument i can see in favor of autonomous vehicles is that they don’t get tired, ill, or drunk, but would they outperform on other kinds of situations across a larger uncontrolled ecosystem? is it worth the expense to develop?
the main reason to develop them is to make military capabilities more mature, which i don’t support. the military would love to have unmanned convoys that are guarded by drones.
that way they can have an easier time doing invasions of sovereign countries
It is of course such an emotional vs rational argument, so extreme, so ridiculous, what can you do but grab a picket sign and say to ban all cars and combustion engines for the sake of poor kit kat. A very easy sell since combustion engines are already viewed as the devil
I agree. In the US trains and buses deliver slow, unreliable, inflexible, expensive, dirty, and dangerous service at high cost.
It will be great to see the safe, clean, flexible, and affordable transportation that will be possible with self-driving cars.
Cars are noisy, take a lot of space, are crazy expensive, dirty (even electric ones leave tire particles in the air) and are involved in 99% of road incidents. Them being self-driving wouldn't fix any of these issues. Maybe they'd be a little safer? But even that is doubtful.
I understand US transportation is in a dire state right now. This shouldn't be a reason to make it worse, quite the contrary IMHO.