>>>http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/04/27/hard-sell-self-driving-car/
>>>
>>>An interesting take and quite insightful imo.
>>
>>Most of that is FUD. He argues against anti-lock brakes and airbags FCOL.
>
>I don't think he argues against anti-lock brakes or airbags. He simply points out that the invention of anti-lock brakes probably marked the start of removing dependence on driver skill from the equation. This is true. And the invention of airbags, and every other enhancement, add costs, both upfront and in maintenance. This is factually correct. The addition of self-driving technology will remove ALL control and adds LOTS of cost without the option of not taking it.
>
>The argument he makes, and I agree with him, is that what starts off as a nice idea will become the law and with that the power of tracking and control will be moved from you to someone else. And as a car enthusiast he is also saying that the fun of driving, working on your car, etc. will eventually be outlawed in favour of capturing a market economically and capturing a market for control. I don't know if it will happen but he argues a fair case that this might.
>
>>Otherwise how is a self-driving car different from having a chauffeured one - except that the chauffeur is inhumanly vigilant and alert and possibly more skilled?
>
>It is not a choice between driving a car myself or using a chauffeur. That assumes freedom of choice. It is a case of the first option being removed, permanently, from my options and being forced to only use a "chauffeur", which adds to cost to run (nice for the company selling that service), loss of freedom, loss of privacy, loss of control, etc.

Using the US as an example, something like 90 people are killed every day in MVAs. On top of that are sub-lethal injuries, the economic costs of resulting traffic jams, legal costs and on and on. For some reason that's considered acceptable.

How much of that carnage could be prevented if pretty much everyone used self-driving cars? Pretty much all of it. Cars don't make mistakes, people make mistakes.

There will be no need for governments to legislate human-driven (HD) vehicles out of existence, we'll choose to do that ourselves:

1. HD vehicles will be second-class citizens, not allowed in road-train HOV lanes where the automated vehicles are travelling bumper to bumper at 120 km/h

2. If the insurance industry is allowed to break HD and SD vehicles into separate pools, insurance costs should go down a lot. At this time my per kilometer insurance costs are about the same as I'm paying for fuel (and I've had maximum-discount rates in a preferred group plan for many years). If HD drivers are lucky their rates might not go up, but I bet they will

3. Cars are cheap because of economies of scale. This cuts both ways; currently expensive SD cars will get less expensive, and HD cars more expensive as production volumes drop

4. Pretty soon they'll be better than you ( if they're not already e.g. http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/07/robby-the-autonomous-audi-learns-to-lap-a-race-track/ ). Don't think so? Wait a year or two... you're on the wrong side of that trend. Soccer moms will be giving you the dirty looks currently reserved for distracted driving

5. You like the thrill of controlling a couple of tons of steel moving at high speed? Cool... take your insurance savings and rent a sports car at a track, or a kart, or WHY. You need the thrill of high-performance driving on public roads? Get over yourself (see #4 above)

In a nutshell, the government isn't going to need to ban HD vehicles, they'll just fade away.