(06-24-2017, 05:45 PM)Bolty Wrote:Insurance may not be more expensive since it's based on your risk to cause damage. If self driving is ubiquitous, then the odd manual driver who is used to the orderly roadway shouldn't be an issue. But, I would say the means for "signaling" intentions would need to be integrated. In theory your self-driving vehicles will announce and coordinate their interactions. A manual driver would need to queue their turns or lane changes. While also still communicating their velocity changes to surrounding vehicles. So, I think as self-driving is adopted, it first will need to deal with the majority of "mute" and insensitive vehicles currently on the roadway.(06-24-2017, 06:08 AM)kandrathe Wrote: Do we outlaw driving?No need. Over time the insurance will become so expensive that only the luxury-rich will be able to afford to manually drive. Then there might be such a societal backlash against anyone who self-drives (and thus causes accidents) that it could disappear altogether outside of specialized tracks (think Nascar).
My prediction is then that the first obstacle in generation one self-driving will be sensors and prediction algorithms without much reliance on intervehicle communication. Once a critical mass of "smart" cars are on the roadways the rules can then change to enable and eventually prefer them. But, the technology would inherit the sensor capabilities of gen one. I've never seen technology removed, and in this case, with NTSB probably calling the shots on requirements, it would be like trying to have seat belts or airbags made obsolete.
Then, all in all, as I think it through, I see manual driving would remain an anachronistic legacy of vehicle technology which will become even safer as random is removed from our transportation network.