The only reason that travelling time could be cut so drastically is because so many more people will be out of work. If, however, the same number of people were still in work, there would still be the same amount of traffic so travelling times would remain the same.
But how many piano makers would that have put out of work and how many people would also be unemployed as a result, not many. If you reduce the number of cars on the road as no-one needs to own one as you can just jump in any old driverless car, you would make millions of people unemployed. People that work in, car sales, motorfactor shops, car insurance sales, people that build the vehicles, people that make parts to supply to the manufacturers, the list would go on and on.
I've worked in and around car manufacturing for 35yrs, your ideals couldn't be anymore way off. A shorter shift will mean less pay or redundancies, not everything can be done by robot, human input is also required. Just because you feel you don't need a car, it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't need or want one.
.... not everything can be done by robot, human input is also required. Just because you feel you don't need a car, it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't need or want one.
I'd spend all that money saved on a new Focus RS to replace my ST.
Car companies are there to manufacture cars. If not so many cars are required, some car manufacturers will go out of business or the vehicles will have to become very expensive to make it worthwhile remaining in business. Who is going to buy and run all these cars anyway. If these cars are going to be used 24/7 they will need a lot of maintenance. Some people have very little respect for how they treat the interior of their own vehicles, as someone else has already pointed out, the interior of these cars could be left in a right mess and you are expected to be the next occupant, no thanks.
Sure there will be redundancies if people don't want the product.
Exactly, being driven around is boring. I don't expect to be on my phone, laptop or having a snooze, I want to enjoy the driving experience, even if it means being stuck in the odd jam.
Nobody forces people to buy new cars, they buy them because they want them, it's not a necessity, so how is that artificially propping up a car factory?
Someone posted that we could share cars. And you said that would put millions out of work.
This will happen or possibly it won't regardless of what anybody here thinks
But the same number of cars will still be required to move the same number of people, the congestion won't change.
... but anyone who has encountered as many human ordure filled cars as I have, will always vote for personal ownership and Autoglym in preference to shared car use! 
There is no need to change speed if your route separates from the route of the convoy, you can peel off out of the middle at full speed and attach to a different convoy or off of the highway to your destination.
... but anyone who has encountered as many human ordure filled cars as I have, will always vote for personal ownership and Autoglym in preference to shared car use!
....WHO FARTED!!!!?
But all this already exists, they are called buses, taxis, trams and trains. If you feel you don't need a car that much, sell it and use them. For me personally, to get to work it would have to be a taxi so the nearest to the driverless car concept, no other forms of transport go anywhere near where I work. It would also be more expensive than actually driving myself.I read all the driverless car thing with great joy, much as the died in the wool car junkies will weep and complain the possibilities are fantastic.
Car pooling, your car drops you off then returns home, disabled access to easy transport, older people who are less confident driving can retain access to transport.
bring it on
But all this already exists, they are called buses, taxis, trams and trains. If you feel you don't need a car that much, sell it and use them. For me personally, to get to work it would have to be a taxi so the nearest to the driverless car concept, no other forms of transport go anywhere near where I work. It would also be more expensive than actually driving myself.I read all the driverless car thing with great joy, much as the died in the wool car junkies will weep and complain the possibilities are fantastic.
Car pooling, your car drops you off then returns home, disabled access to easy transport, older people who are less confident driving can retain access to transport.
bring it on
However, Google said its driverless cars had never been the cause of an accident, and that the majority of "minor fender-benders"
had been in the form of rear-end collisions from other drivers.
How can it be the cars fault? after all to err is to be human...................
But it takes a computer to totally f*** things up
Front assist and a combination of keeping more distanceIndeed. It can be avoided with modern emergency braking assist. Hurrah! for more automation in cars.
Thus technology becomes more accepted. Unlike earlier pages of this thread.
I work for a reinsurance company and trust me, there's a lot of people working on the legal and insurance liability issues regarding driverless cars (and drones too, which is the other 'new tech' issue).
