Outside of weather causing damage to the external sensors, I don't really see why it would be hard to deal with from a programming standpoint. The proper way to deal with, say, hydroplaning (ease off throttle, do not apply brake, downshift if necessary), or skidding on ice (pretty much the same as hydroplaning, with the additional step of 'pray to the deity of your choosing'), is fairly consistent.

My brother did exactly that with credit card debt when he was 18-20, which is why he's almost 35 and just now able to apply for his first home loan.

If the government would be more reasonable about the repayment terms, I'd be OK with owing it for life.

I presume you've never filed bankruptcy.

FYI, payday loans and pawn tickets are not technically credit, in the sense that they don't go on your credit report.

That's not the same thing as "no-fault."

"no-fault" implies that regardless of how the collision occurred, everyone pays for their own stuff. Like in parking lots.

See, that works in parking lots because it's often hard to determine who screwed up, especially considering how poorly some lots are marked.

It does not work that way on public streets, for lots of reasons. Namely because innocent parties who are harmed by the negligence of others shouldn't, per our legal system, be required to bear the burden of that other person's mistake.

A "no-fault" world would mean that if you were crossing an intersection and got t-boned by a drunk driver who failed to stop at the red light, your family would pay for your medical expenses, funeral, etc, and Drunk Moron would only have to pay for the damage to his own vehicle.

Remember, I said "if you want to make auto-cars mandatory."

This implies that every single American household with automobiles would, within the next handful of years and pretty much simultaneously, be required to trade in their essentially worthless vehicles at a huge loss, since scrap steel is worth less than $150/ton. You, I, and everyone else with sense knows that neither auto dealers nor banks are going to be willing to purchase those now-useless, human operated vehicles for anything more than scrap value, which means my $25K+ Volkswagen would have a total trade in value of around $100, regardless of condition or mileage. How is anyone supposed to afford a brand new car with $100 of trade-in value? There's only one answer: government subsidies.

IMO, if a plan flat-out requires a taxpayer subsidy in order to function, it's a bad plan.

So... a subsidy, then.

Couldn't you have at least tried?

I appreciate the admission that while possible, that might not be a wise financial move, universally.

Another issue at hand, are there any plans for an automated pickup truck? I have large things to haul on a regular basis.

Yea, sadly I don't see the "full automation that doesn't even allow, let alone require at any point, human control" coming along until today's pre-teens are my own age.

For me, I won't care for 'em until those bad-boys can fly.

So really, by "the elderly would participate more" what you're really saying is that elderly people who are, currently, mostly homebound due to reasonable travel restraints, would be less hindered thanks to auto-cars.

That makes sense now. Also, when you swap the term "elderly" for "homebound," you realize that the invention would actually help open up the world for a far greater portion of the population.

If your ride gets crunched because you were operating it improperly, you don't deserve to "get paid."

Right now I have about $50K invested in human-controlled automobiles. These automobiles, with proper maintenance, will last me another 10-20 years.

The real question is, if you want to make auto-cars mandatory, how are you going to get the millions of Americans who are currently paying for non-auto-cars out of their loans? If non-auto-cars become unusable on public streets, how the hell am I supposed to get enough value out of the ones I already own, to be able to afford to replace them with 2 auto-cars?

FYI, if your answer involves a government subsidy, then you're already admitting to failure.

How about people who proofread their edits before hitting Submit? Sheesh...

Insurance regulations only apply to vehicles driven on public streets.

That said, one has to wonder if this concept could give rise to a cottage industry of "private road" providers, who charge build roads on their property for human-controlled vehicles and charge a premium for their use...

Also have to wonder if this will mean an end to toll roads. My guess is, not likely.

This I see happening. I also see municipalities scrambling to find new ways to bilk residents out of their money, since speed traps will be defunct.

Not sure where you're coming from on this; how? Do you think the automated cars are going to be free/cheaper than existing taxi cabs and public transit? Or are you basing this claim on some rationale I have yet to consider?

FTFY