10 million downloads and counting (Classic Shell). Not sure if that hits 5% of Win8 install base.

It will end up being cheaper cars designed to only be automated are built. You can also build lighter and simpler vehicles as the number of human drivers drops.

The lobbyist driven aspects will be the people trying to keep their jobs driving (truck, bus, taxi.)

Except....

If the above scenario takes place it will mean that other jurisdictions (Singapore, Korea, China, Taiwan) will end up as the chief source of expertise for these vehicles and end up with the largest portion of the profits.

The current trend of some states (e.g. Michigan) to enact robotic car testing friendly rules show that some politicians really want the business to be built locally. So its unlikely they will stand by and let the courts (well litigants in the courts) play games.

At least in places with law derived from the British Courts, the default is precedent unless there is a specific law.

More specifically laws are strictly interpreted to see if they cover a specific situation. But if there is no specific law then the closest precedents are used to determine which is closest.

Skytrain may be on a separate track (mostly two, one for each direction.)

But you still need very careful traffic management to ensure that any train does not run into another one stopped at a station or anywhere else. I.e. a planned (station) or unplanned (random) stop.

These things go fast and hitting a stopped train would generate headlines. And if you where around Vancouver in the mid eighties when Skytrain was first built there where numerous naysayers predicting catastrophe if there was not an operator in each train to be able to "hit the brakes" if needed.

Trains are on rails but that does NOT stop them from killing people when they crash. Typical causes are trains going too fast around corners (recent news, driver was "inattentive") or going through warning signals to hit another train.

Sort of. But you (or the owner) will still be responsible for making sure the proper maintenance schedule is followed. And in some situations even though the vehicle didn't manage to avoid a crash it may still be that something else is liable.

Think plane landing on freeway (in the news yesterday).

Or animal control fence damaged and elk or cows wandering across the road. The car should have avoided them, but the underlying cause is STILL the owner of the fence not doing HIS maintenance.

It is rarely that you can simply point the finger at a single entity and say its ALL your fault.

Huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

San Francisco's Lombard Street and Golden Gate Bridge are a fair distance from Arizona. As is Lake Tahoe.

Yes. But.

The human drivers are there to satisfy legal and insurance requirements.

To date the number of times that they (humans) have taken over the vehicle is limited (last I heard was three) and in those cases a review of the data after the fact showed that the computer would done the same thing.

As deployed the Google solution is getting pretty close based on the data sets they are using. In other words they don't need any new magical algorithms. They do need better and cheaper sensors with improved ways of recognizing things in real time. Most of these requirements will be solved by higher manufacturing volumes and Moores Law (in general if not specifically.)

To a certain extent, assuming the cost of accidents will drop, the total $ value of required insurance will drop, so the profit participation of the insurance companies will also drop.

But that is seen as a global effect, while the immediate reaction of most insurance companies will be to accept increased profits on a short term basis by over charging for insurance that doesn't reflect probable pay outs.

Not much different from now. Car manufacturers already have insurance (or do self-insurance) against law suits for faulty goods. Again the incidence of successful lawsuits will cause their premiums to rise or fall providing a good incentive to make safe fault free vehicles.

Nothing to see here.

If you own the vehicle you will pay the insurance.

If you don't own the vehicle the owner of the vehicle will pay the insurance.

Think taxi or limousine service. Their insurance costs are simply bundled into the fee you pay for hiring them.

When you own the vehicle you are responsible for its operation and maintenance. So as with everything else the reputation of the builder of the vehicle will be a guide to the cost of the insurance (lots of accidents will mean higher premiums.) So you will want to compare cost of insurance as part of your purchase decision. Nothing new, we already do that (although its about the cost of repair mostly).

Don't forget that a large volume (i.e. > 50%) of traffic will end up being both driver less and passenger less. Think delivery vehicles. Think cars taking themselves somewhere to park or pick up another passenger or charge their batteries.

So you need to have the car be reliable without a human in the vicinity.

This also means that you reduce the cost of the vehicles because you remove the redundant and now unused and unneeded controls. More room for people and cargo.

Drivers licenses will be optional for today's pre-school aged kids. And only available after special training for specific areas (like test tracks) for their kids.

Autonomous vehicles will be more like taxis. You get in and they take you somewhere. You're interaction is limited to stating your preferred destination and route.

Liability will be covered by insurance against possible mistakes or mechanical problems.

Possibly some cars may allow you to control the vehicle yourself IFF you have a valid drivers license AND your own insurance. Most people won't bother having either as there will be no need for the additional expense.