JohnW wrote:If driverless cars were allowed on the roads, what would be the point? To eliminate drivers? If not to eliminate drivers, then why?
..............1> Safety, driverless cars don't break rules, respond faster to 'situations' and are more aware of their environment
.........................A driverless car can be an office on the way to wherever you're going. No problems taking phone calls, using computers or even watching a film..........................A driverless car will move people from A to B regardless of their ability to drive. From small children to going and getting your 100 year old grandma...........................
Well Kwackers - who's going to 'supervise' it? The impression that I had from one of your previous posts was that, even if a driverless car did have weaknesses, all would be well because it would be "supervised". Supervised by whom? - and how then? - if they're watching a film.
Now c'mon kwackers - there are plenty of drivers who get into unbelievable schtuck just by trusting satnavs and driving as they instruct. I submit that satnavs are not an acceptable substitute for knowing your way.
As for being "more aware of their environment" - you'll have to make one heck of an argument to sustain that proposition - environment is a human thing. You seem to believe that I could be the "...............sort of person who thinks the point of a car is to drive it............." - no I don't - I've never had a car, learned to drive 45 years ago but didn't take a test and never driven since. I don't wish to do any harm.
How do you know that driverless cars don't break rules? - how many of them are there? - what are the rules? - who will make the rules?.......and so it goes on. If someone is "developing" a driverless car, then there's neither experience nor data for you to base you proclamations upon
I read somewhere once - it must have been 30-35 years ago now, so numbers may have changed - that 80% of research worldwide was devoted to armaments and weaponry - i.e. killing people - rather than improving quality of life.
No change there then.
There's no solidarity or credibility in your arguments in this matter Kwackers, and I think that you're arguing for the sake of it.
Driverless cars may very well come - scientists can't rest without doing harm - but hopefully not in my day.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I use the term "arguing" more in the sense of debating, and not - repeat not - in the sense of quarrelling).This is my third edit of this post. This one and the previous two were made to correct spelling mistakes. I'm only human......