Actually, auto makers are tending to do the opposite, actually using speakers and installing other systems to make the engine noises LOUDER. ;)

So long as the collision avoidance logic is still in charge to prevent collisions, I'd be more concerned about an OTA update attack that changes the auto-drive programming.

Such as to direct hitting something in certain circumstances...

There's still a lot of cars in Germany, something doesn't have to apply to 90% of people to still be highly useful.

Also, self-driving cars can also increase fuel economy through a combination of reduced speeds(no rush if you're reading), more fuel efficient driving(let the car figure out the ideal acceleration rates and such), and perhaps even stuff like predicting the next light to avoid having to stop at all.

Oh, and if you want to keep your export economy...

Yeah, except that I predict that it'd be more along the lines of '340 car traffic jam' because they yanked up the dots and rearranged them.

Seriously, 'avoiding collision' is really the most programmed for condition for auto-drive cars. Combine an ever-vigilant computer that's never distracted with defensive driving that 'only' trusts it's redundant sensor suite* and you should have to work very hard to get it to collide with something.

*And refuses to drive if those don't work.

Sure, but they're the 1%ers, not the 99%ers, because just getting a license is much harder and the German Police will bust your ass for things like tailgating or not signaling before they will for speeding.

As for the AC's worry about an auto-drive car hitting somebody. I'm sure it will happen, but will be incredibly, incredibly rare.

So rather than 'hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street going to Church Sunday morning', it'd be more along the lines of 'failed to stop in time when pedestrian unexpectedly darted into the road and the car couldn't stop fast enough due to black ice'. Which, like the real world, generally ends up with the pedestrian being considered at fault for darting into traffic, especially during bad weather.

Still, the manufacturer of the auto-drive system will probably end up taking at least some of the liability in that case, but there's an equally good chance they'll be let off the hook because the owner/operator of the vehicle modified it somehow (or grossly failed in maintenance like replacing bald tires). I predict that once the systems are good enough, congress will pass some sort of limited liability law so that those killed by malfunctions only get something like $1M, which helps with predictions so the manufacturers know how much liability to bake into the price of their systems. Remember, it's saving lives on the whole, we don't want to drive them bankrupt.

As you mention, reduced insurance rates is a reason to buy the new vehicles, and that ties in directly with reduced car accidents. The other stuff is bonus.

Though when I figured it out, valuing people's time at $10/hour NOT spent driving, that was the biggest factor.

15k miles/year average per vehicle, figure an average speed of 30 mph, that's 500 hours/year. Or $5k. Even if you only value your time in the car at $5, perhaps because you get motion sickness if you're not driving* so you can't read/watch TV, that's $2500. Given that I only pay ~$1k/year for full coverage...

Anyways, a self-driving option is a dead simple choice at $5k, and would still be attractive to many at $15k. Note: This would be for a 'Johnny Cab' level AI that doesn't require you behind a wheel to operate correctly.

*It's a thing, many people who become motion sick if a passenger in a vehicle don't if they're driving. It's probably the control thing. They know that some disruption is happening.

Huh, actually had to google what Botts' dots are. FTL: rarely used in regions with substantial snowfall, because snow plows damage or dislodge them.

Wouldn't do much good up where I live if they can't take snow plows. Instead of dots to provide 'rumble' we put notches in the pavement.

Now something that you can sink into the pavement, sort of like a concrete screw? That might work.

Trust but verify - IE while you trust other cars for providing road condition information, you also don't trust it enough to let it put you into a crash condition. IE it maintains proper following space.

The communications are more for things like 'road obstruction ahead; expect slower speeds and find alternative route if possible', and information that the car can use to figure out that if it slows down 3mph it'll be able to cruise right through a section vs being forced to stop.

I'm still reminded of what I've read about the Wright Brother's attempts at powered flight, up against dozens of other teams, some with national support.

I look forward to seeing them, because with efforts taking place in Germany, Japan, and the USA to just name the 'big 3', somebody is probably going to succeed in fairly short order(still years though).

Car accidents cost us enough to more than pay for it.

Well, they could be imported in (very) small numbers as a utility vehicle. They wouldn't be allowed on the highways, but golf-cart type vehicles are allowed on many residential streets.

Indeed. 'Disruptive' would be Tesla coming out with a hatchback EV with a 300 mile range for under $20k (just to make it wildly disruptive).

Worst case this displaces some kit car builds, and the likely result is that the prototyping departments are already buying the printers for the major manufacturers to purchase themselves.

I'll add one more: The kit car. So long as it's assembled by the owner himself(though he can subsequently sell it intact, it's a bit like selling home-made firearms), it's not considered 'manufactured' and not subject to a lot of the rules.

If they can arrange it so the buyer is 'assembling' the car(even if that means the paperwork says he's renting the machine and buying only the feedstock/parts) as a legal fiction, they can dodge a lot of rules.

Yeah, but you can print an awful lot of things if you have that much power available...

Remember: Some 3d printers print in metal, concrete, tissue cultures, etc... Some of these require rather more power to run the 'print head'.

If the manufactured number is small enough, no crash safety testing needs to be done.

Depending on the number they're anticipating on selling and the amount of modification the individuals are doing, they could come under the line because they're just not selling enough of them or even, by legal trickery like 'renting' the machine to the customer who uses it to build his car(with help) and the amount of customization/design work the buyer does, every car each customer makes could be 'unique' enough to count separately and come under the limit.

Printed plastic isn't strong enough, but I wonder if this might find business applications? Vehicles with customized shells to accommodate specialized equipment? I'm thinking of everything from a slot for a generator on vans/trucks used on construction sites to a custom shell designed for a pizza oven to be inserted into a delivery vehicle for the ultimate in freshness.

'Street Legal' can mean many different things. In many cases this would effectively be a 'hobby car' - IE built by the owner, one-off, etc... In many states making one street legal is around a 10 item checklist - does it have brakes? Does it have functional brake lights? Can it turn? Functional turn signals? Windscreen, headlights?

Safety of the occupants of said vehicle is not really addressed, just that they aren't a rampant danger to the other people on the road.

Emissions can be tougher.

It ends up on the definition of 'manufactured', they may be utilizing a loophole which even auto makers exploit for things like their concept cars - one off cars are crafted, not manufactured. Ergo exempt from everything, but they have to actually be 'crafted', IE hand built in a one-off fashion.

With the 3D printer system they could be leasing the equipment and assistance to the buyer, who actually triggers the machine. Since his modifications make the vehicle one-off, built by him(technically), it's not 'manufactured' under the definitions.

Much like how you can buy a complete kit car that's also exempt. You just have to put it together.

...So much wrong with your statement.

1. Vaccines are technically not a drug.
2. The vaccine is, ideally, not present by the time you're exposed to a disease.
3. Vaccines are really 'training' for your immune system. It's like having soldiers shoot at silhouettes as part of their training, doing reaction drills, showing them example IEDs, etc... That way they'll be more effective in the field.
4. Viruses mutate quite naturally. By giving them fewer hosts you can actually slow the mutation rate.
5. Infection rate doesn't change much.