When a preponderance of self-driving cars causes the automobile fatality rate to drop from its current 35,000/year to somewhere below 10,000/year, it will be hard to argue that the key factor in self-driving car safety is the availability of a human backup. When the evidence is in that the machines drive themselves that much more safely than we do, I think the argument of convenience will seal the deal, just as the argument of convenience has resulted in our putting up with the number of automobile fatalities we’ve endured over the decades.
ETA: One stage we’re likely to go through is where a human driver is required to be there ‘just in case,’ but after awhile most human drivers accept their superfluousness, and just stop paying attention while the car drives itself. Once you get to a point where only a small minority of drivers are even moderately engaged in their backup role - and it will happen - the argument that you need a driver will be ridiculed.
What long-term loss of jobs? Money not spent in one place will be spent somewhere else, and generate new jobs. It’s like bemoaning all the secretarial jobs lost to computers: sure, we have way fewer secretaries now, but have we had overall job loss as a result?
35,000 fewer deaths annually to persons in relatively good health and of relatively young ages is nothing to sneeze at. Nor the health care costs of all the people injured in those accidents. Not to mention, people won’t have to own as many cars, freeing up their resources for other spending. Cars can mostly be smaller to reflect the typical trips people take, rather than having to have a car with 4+ seats to accomodate the occasional need one might have for those seats. That’ll result in reduced gas consumption, and more space on the roads, leading to more efficient commutes. (If I make it to midcentury, as I hope to do, I fully expect to see a preponderance of cars that can only accommodate one passenger, because that’s how we roll, the vast majority of the time.)
We’ll save time and hassle because we won’t have to chauffer our kids all over the place before they get their licenses: we can just tell the car to take 'em to soccer practice. (I’m sorry I’m going to miss out on this!)
We’ll be able to build buildings instead of parking lots next to suburban transit stops, greatly increasing the economic utility of those stops.
And that’s really just for starters. Self-driving cars will be a revolution in how we use our physical world, and how we use our time. This will be like computers: the implications of their widespread adoption just keep on going.
Oh, and according to the BLS there are 1.1 million truck drivers earning $37,770 on average for a total of $60 billion/year in pre-tax salary.
So we can save 35,000 lives, significantly reduce the number and cost of 2.2 million injuries by up to $100 billion, make our lives more efficient by any number of the arguments listed above (and all of this is per year), but we don’t want to do it because many, if not most, truck drivers will likely lose their jobs?
I’m definitely not very knowledgeable about how all of this would work but I sure wish someone could make it safer and easier to navigate the average shopping center parking lot. I drive a standard car. If I end up parked between 2 SUVs, I have a terrible time trying to determine if it’s safe to back out of my space. It’s almost impossible to see if there are oncoming cars, not to mention pedestrians pushing shopping carts. And there’ve been a few times that I returned to my car, noticing that the car next to mine was already occupied with the engine running. In cases like that, it’s anybody’s guess who is going to try backing out first. In fact, a few times in those parking lots, I’ve tried pondering the issues of how smart cars with collision avoidance technology might be able to sort things out. Would they have some way of communicating with each other and agreeing on which should go first?
The OP said cars would be autmoated. There was nothing in the premise that said they would be accident-proof. Some people have assumed that automated vehicles will have fewer accidents than driven vehicles but that’s just an assumption. But we could just as easily assume the new technology will have more accidents. So the honest thing to do is assume the accident rate will remain the same.
There’s no reason to assume there would be less traffic. If anything, automated vehicles will make it easier for people to travel and put more vehicles on the road. Which also cancels out any theoretical fuel savings.
And why wouldn’t we need parking lots? Are you suggesting we’ll just have out vehicles drop us off wherever we’re going and then we’ll have them drive around while we’re shopping or working or watching a movie? That would be possible but it would cause a major increase in traffic and fuel use as vehicles drive around just to kill time while their owners are doing something else.
Accident proof no, but safer, absolutely. Automated cars don’t text and drive, they don’t drink and drive and they don’t get sleepy.
Just going on my own experience; I’ve worked in two manufacturing plants. One of them, the work was all done manually. The second, was fully automated. Guess which one had fewer accidents and less fuck ups? (by far)
As far as less traffic? I don’t know, but I do know that with the right management system, there would be fewer traffic jams. Computer models have shown this to be true.
Autonomous cars are not in widespread use, but their introduction could produce several direct advantages:
Fewer crashes, due to the autonomous system’s increased reliability compared to human drivers[27]
Increased roadway capacity and reduce traffic congestion due to reduced need of safety gaps[28] for example by platooning, and the ability to better manage traffic flow.[27]
Optimization - autonomous cars could find the fastest way to go from one place to another, taking into account traffic congestion.
Reduce oil consumption and air pollution due to better manage traffic flow and by removing safety features.
Relief of vehicle occupants from driving and navigation chores.[27]
Removal of constraints on occupant’s state - it would not matter if the occupants were too young, too old or if their frame of mind were not suitable to drive a traditional car.
Furthermore, disabilities would no longer matter.[29]
Elimination of redundant passengers - humans are not required to take the car anywhere, as the robotic car can drive empty to wherever it is required.[29]
Alleviation of parking scarcity as cars could drop off passengers, park far away where space is not scarce, and return as needed to pick up passengers.
It has been proposed that since cars spend 96% of their time idle, using autonomous cars could boostcar-sharing services such as Zipcar and Getaround, and thus reduce the number of vehicles worldwide.[30][31]
Reduce the amount of space required for vehicle parking.[32]
Reduce the costs and inconvenience of employing drivers (for example for public transport or commercial vehicles).
Since autonomous cars would not violate the law[dubious – discuss] and would be less likely to cause traffic collision, traffic police and vehicle insurance could be reduced or eliminated.
Reduced need for road signage - autonomous cars could receive necessary communication electronically, meaning there would be no need for physical signs, line markings or the like.[33][34][35]