Well written and it seems reasonable, except that I assume that this will fairly quickly go from individual robocars to a total solution - a fleet of cars where you rent a transportation service. The states will take offers from companies such as Google, which implements their system, perhaps with a few large car companies supplying cars and NSA watching over the system.
Only in the US. How is this handled in your taxi-industry? Do you sign any papers before driving off in taxis in case of accidents?
Trains? Buses?
The "then you must outlaw anything that could ever result in harm to anyone" assertion is a strawman. No one is proposing this, and as has been demonstrated by several posters (to no avail), there is an obvious and important dichotomy between the proposition that something is dangerous and should therefore be regulated and that all dangerous things ought to be regulated or banned. The state has no control over you doing things that can result only in harm to yourself (like swimming, or skiing, or bungee-jumping) or result in harm to others engaging in that activity by their own choice outside of the context of a public, civilian space. The state does and should have the authority to regulate or ban activity in the context of a public space that can endanger the safety and well-being of people other than the person engaging in the dangerous activity, whatever it might be.
But all this is irrelevant for the reasons that firstly, this syllogism construct that regulating activities which are dangerous to large groups of people means you have to regulate all dangerous activities ever, is a strawman; and secondly, strawmanning is a particularly frustrating logical fallacy. The majority of the time strawmanning either results from the emotional and kneejerk belief that what the opposite side is proposing is actually a clever and evil front for their actual intention, in this case the creation of an omnipotent and unassailable nanny-state, or from an intentional and disingenuous desire to manipulate and obstruct the debate. In either case pointing out the fact that the strawman is a strawman does nothing for anyone. The offending parties will continue assembling strawmen until they die of exhaustion or burst into tiny, logically-incoherent bits. I suspect that in this case it is primarily the former, that the posters assembling strawmen believe that the real crux of the debate is one of personal freedom and social responsibility as opposed to public safety and transportation efficiency. It is prohibitively difficult to disavow people of the notion that something threatens their way of life (which apparently automated driving does), so the thread is at an impasse
Watch out, world, you're in for some serious crap now. Forma and I united! NONE SHALL STAND AGAINST US!
That's because some people don't like to actually engage in rational discourse and will conveniently ignore any argument that delves too deep, instead waiting and restating the same thing they did before.
At times, it feels that these "freedom-loving" people don't actually love freedom. They just want to have the freedom to do more things, even when it infringes on others' freedoms even more. Fairly selfish, in my opinion.
But claiming that everybody needs to be shielded from what is largely incompetence on the part of a fairly small segment of drivers drivers by depriving everybody else of the freedom to operate motor vehicles is clearly authoritarian.
The odds of dying in a traffic-related death is fairly small, and it is falling despite the population growing.
Interesting that you would see it that way. Seeing as the people concerned with the expansion of this technology are not arguing against the ability of roads to be built that allow for it to be used effectively. What they seem concerned about, rather, is the ability of them to get from point A to point B at least semi effectively without needing to buy into putting their lives literally in the hands of google. Or the NSA, or whoever builds/engineers/runs this thing in whatever form it takes. The only people I see in this discussion arguing for curtailing the actions and agency of others are the technologically hopeful that would wish to limit the choice of others "for their own good," or for "the good of everybody" if you like it phrased better that way. The scorn of your post seems pretty misplaced. But I guess freedumbs and amerifats or whatever?
Edit: this was supposed to be rueful, but I was writing in a hurry. It didn't come out that way, please take the tone and make it 2 points less female doggy.
I guess coming up with inane hyperbolic examples such as that merely because you disagree with others' opinions is your notion of discussion. Restricting people from doing what they can now do is hardly freedom.I guess depriving everybody of the freedom of racing F1-style cars on public roads is authoritarian too.
It is also the predominate mode of transportation. Where else are you exposed to even possible death in your everyday life?It's still the number one cause of death among age groups which have minimal age-related health problems (Which we should also be working on fixing.)
I guess coming up with inane hyperbolic examples such as that merely because you disagree with others' opinions is your notion of discussion. Restricting people from doing what they can now do is hardly freedom.
It is also the predominate mode of transportation. Where else are you exposed to even possible death in your everyday life?
There is a simple solution. Live in isolation on property where you forbid any motorized vehicles to operate.
I mean the average Joe Schmuck is losing his privacy and liberty in both directions, to the government, and to the markets. As IglooDude is saying, now the government will know where you are at all times. Well, guess what? So will the private sector! And while the government is more powerful in what it can do to you, the private private companies are more voracious in what they will do to you! So if you are looking at the liberty issues concerning this, you are utterly failing to appreciate the scope and the scale of the problem if you are just looking at that the government will gain in information. For while the government may act on that information, should it have a reason to, it still needs to generate a reason to. And while that reasoning may be flimsy as hell, it still needs something. Where the market already has all the reason it could ever want to misuse any increase in knowledge or power that falls their way. And so the market will misuse and abuse any new powers and information that it gets, because that's the way it always operates now, and no one will bat an eye when it just keeps doing what it has been doing all along. Only more of it. And there's the thing, the market is intrusive on your property and liberty at all times.
For, you know, that's where the money is.
And so as we move to self driving cars, as we move to more and more of our lives on computer, as we move to world where nothing in your life is ever deleted from the net, we really need a national discussion on just how much of our power and privacy we are yielding up.
And where to draw the line.
Cause that line ain't gonna get drawn until all the Joe Schmucks out there take a stand, and that stand has to be equally against the government, and against an unbridled 'free market'. Going against one or the other alone is just going to leave the other ubiquitous.