By on March 8, 2017

autonomous testing tesla

There is something uncanny about a car that can drive itself. If you transplanted the world’s first motorists into a modern autonomous vehicle and let it lose on a track, they’d probably surmise witchcraft as the only plausible explanation and jump out in terror. Humans are innately distrustful of anything unfamiliar — it’s an important part of our survival strategy as a species. With that in mind, it isn’t surprising to hear that many Americans are a little wary of self-driving cars.

However, a recent study from the American Automobile Association suggests it might be more serious than that. The vast majority of surveyed Americans admitted to being “afraid” of riding in an autonomous vehicle while over half said they felt less safe at the prospect of sharing the road with driverless technology. This isn’t likely to be welcome news for automakers, considering that every major manufacturer is currently investing heavily into the computer and industrial sciences required to make autonomous tech possible.

“A great race towards autonomy is underway and companies are vying to introduce the first driverless cars to our roadways,” said Greg Brannon, AAA’s director of automotive engineering and industry relations. “However, while U.S. drivers are eager to buy vehicles equipped with autonomous technology, they continue to fear a fully self-driving vehicle.”

Taking a random sampling of 1,012 adults, AAA found that 78 percent of American drivers surveyed reported feelings of fear at the mere concept of being a passenger in a self-driving vehicle. Obviously, older generations were more likely to be apprehensive but even 73 percent of the 18- to 36-year-old demographic said it was a scary idea. Women were also far more likely to be afraid than men.

The responses are a little less overwhelmingly negative when participants were asked about sharing the road with computer-controlled cars. Only 54 percent of the U.S. drivers said they felt “less safe” when conceptualizing cruising beside self-driving vehicles. However, only 10 percent claimed they’d feel reassured knowing those vehicles were in the mix.

The silver lining for automakers is that most people still actively want self-driving technology as an option on future cars. While Baby Boomers and Generation X were almost fifty-fifty on the issue, 70 percent of Millennials were keen on the notion.

However, AAA performed a similar round of cold calling in 2016 that yielded almost identical figures — meaning someone needs to educate consumers on the effectiveness of emerging vehicle technologies. By and large, every study on current and future autonomous features seems to underscore added safety. Human error in the streets costs lives and not every motorist takes the same level of care to be a good driver. If the car can pick up some of the slack that a bad driver leaves behind, it probably should, but nobody will bother if they don’t trust and understand the technology.

[Image: Tesla Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

89 Comments on “The Average American is Seriously Afraid of Autonomous Cars: Study...”


  • avatar
    FreedMike

    “The Average American is Seriously Afraid of Autonomous Cars: Study”

    Well, yeah…

    • 0 avatar
      Rick T.

      This doesn’t help:

      “Tucked into WikiLeaks’ analysis of a trove of documents allegedly from the Central Intelligence Agency is a stunning line: That the agency has looked into hacking cars, which WikiLeaks asserts could be use to carry out “nearly undetectable assassinations.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/03/08/what-we-know-about-car-hacking-the-cia-and-those-wikileaks-claims/?utm_term=.f27dd26e87b6

    • 0 avatar

      In “AA mode” you will be more than happy to have the car auto-pilot itself while you are enjoying your alcoholic beverage.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    What happens when one of these things crashes into you? Who do you sue? I can see them being a boon for personal injury lawyers.

    A future Jim Adler (“The Texas Hammer”) ad:

    “A robot car crashed into one of my clients, causing a broken leg, a broken pelvis, and internal injuries. I got him two-hundred twenty thousand, eight-hundred fifty-seven dollars, IN HIS POCKET!”

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “Who do you sue?”

      You sue both the manufacturer and the owner so that you can get information in discovery. Then if you find evidence showing that one of them is clearly the culprit (for instance, a manufacturing defect or an owner that made unauthorized modifications to the software) then you might drop the other party from the suit. If either one of them is insured, then their insurance companies will also become involved in the litigation.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Yes, assigning liability is the biggest impediment.

      Volvo’s grandiose claim that they will absorb liability for their future Level 5 system is ridiculous. They won’t be writing blank checks to plaintiffs.

      And if liability remains with the driver, buyers will shun AVs.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      That’s what liability insurance is for.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “By and large, every study on current and future autonomous features seems to underscore added safety. Human error in the streets costs lives and not every motorist takes the same level of care to be a good driver.”

    Americans don’t really care about saving lives; they care about retaining control – independence, wave the flag, and all that. A century of motoring proves that. It’s this emotion that has killed off public transit in the US.

    Besides, human error always happens to someone *else*.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      Using public transit requires mixing with the public. Those who’ve also escaped from my side of the tracks don’t ever again want to smell that smell.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The problem with public transportation, is the public is on it.

        • 0 avatar
          Rick T.

          “CTA rider Michael Moore couldn’t believe what he was seeing, so he wanted to document it. Moore shot about 12 seconds of what he describes as hundreds and hundreds of living bugs crawling inside a black garbage bag which had holes in the bottom.

          He believes the woman carrying the bag was homeless, and that the bugs were bedbugs.

          Moore said he notified the train’s conductor and the CTA reacted quickly. He said he waited about 10 minutes while they disinfected the train car. CTA confirmed that the car was taken out of service.”

          http://abc7chicago.com/news/cta-rider-says-woman-carrying-bedbug-infested-bag-got-back-on-train/1764654/

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        That is a rather North American viewpoint. In much of Europe regardless of status or income,outside of the proverbial 1%,
        public transit is viewed as a viable travel alternative.

        • 0 avatar
          RobertRyan

          @Arthur Dailey
          If there was a lot more i e California, the horrendous traffic jams in LA would be substantially reduced

        • 0 avatar
          OldManPants

          “That is a rather North American viewpoint.”

          Europeans weren’t imbecilic enough to settle and breed their slaves in Europe.

          Instead, they’re bringing in mooslems to accomplish much the same result, just a bit more slowly and without ever having gotten any work out of them.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            OMB, that’s a very uninformed and prejudiced viewpoint. I agree with Arthur on this one; we “Americans” don’t want to see equality across the board; some want a small group to be “more equal than others.”

    • 0 avatar
      orenwolf

      You forget that for those no longer able or able-bodied enough to drive themselves, autonomy represents a *return to control*, or at least of self-reliance.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        You are right on that point. It’s something I’d advocate for my 83-year-old father-in-law, who really shouldn’t be driving any more.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          My own mother is afraid to drive… but refuses to leave her home and lose her independence. She drives because she has to.

        • 0 avatar

          I think we can advocate AV’s for all of us. We will hopefully reach a ripe old age and also be better off being driven than attempting it ourselves.

          Can’t wait for my model 3. I have Glaucoma, and peripheral vision will be the first to go. You better believe I’ll be happy to hand control over if the visual field test comes back showing peripheral vision loss in few years.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Self-driving tech should be an enhancement to the human driver’s abilities (or lack thereof), not a replacement to it.

      I’d much rather have “control with help” than no control whatsoever. I think that’s a perfectly rational opinion.

      • 0 avatar

        I agree with FreedMike–control with help over no control.

        I would rather drive than use public transit because I enjoy driving. Of course, if I had to go into Boston every day during rush hour, I’d probably opt for transit.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      “Human error” is such a pleasant way to describe systematic negligence.

  • avatar
    OldManPants

    I’m far more afraid of the vast majority of surveyed Americans continuing to drive their cars.

    Stupid, drunk, distracted, senile, angry, exhausted, aggressive and drugged are not platforms from which to demand trust.

  • avatar
    RHD

    Our experience with our home computers, cell phones and automotive electronics have shown us how they break down and malfunction, especially after just a few years.
    Who would put their life, and the live of others, and their families, in the hands of circuit boards, capacitors and wires? The early adopters will be the guinea pigs.
    No car gets the maintenance that jetliners get, or the triple redundancies. We can’t even keep substandard Chinese tires out of the country.
    Human drivers ARE all too often drunk, stupid, tired, incompetent, aged and/or distracted by their cell phones. But the new technology will have to prove itself to be more reliable than people, and be entirely infallible in all conditions, including wind, dust, heat, cold, snow, rain, hail, smoke, construction zones, detours, tunnels, potholes, puddles, mud, road debris, collisions with animals, squashed bug accumulations, et cetera, as well as system failures, such as low voltage from a bad alternator.
    Too much can go wrong. Why would anyone automatically trust automatically driving cars at this point in the game? Heck, look at how may times navigation systems tell you to turn just a couple of seconds too late.
    Maybe in a few years. Meanwhile, it’s three pedals and five speeds for me, thank you very much.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Who would put their life, and the live of others, and their families, in the hands of circuit boards, capacitors and wires?”

      Do you fly in commercial aircraft?
      Do you drive a modern car?

      If the answer to either of those questions is “yes”, then you already put your life, your family’s lives and the lives of others into the “hands of circuit boards, capacitors and wires.” Whether you realize it or not.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        +1.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “Do you fly in commercial aircraft?”

        Yes, and they’re all flown by highly trained, highly experienced pilots who know exactly what to do when the “circuit boards, capacitors and wires” go south. Thus, I have no problem with the “circuit boards, capacitors and wires”. They serve the people in charge, not the other way around.

        • 0 avatar
          TTCat

          @FreedMike

          Not as much as you might like – one of the bigger problems with automated flight systems is that the pilots spend far too little time in actual control of the aircraft, and many times when an in flight system suddenly fails, the pilots have almost no situational awareness of what was transpiring before being forced to re-assume control – this is generally perceived to be more of an issue with Airbus aircraft than Boeings, and was identified as a major contributing factor in the Air France 447 crash.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            True, but in the end, computers clearly aren’t up to the job of flying planes with no human involvement…at least yet.

          • 0 avatar
            chuckrs

            While you remember AF 447, its good to remember the somewhat happier outcome of UA 232, where Capt Al Haynes and two other pilots fought a DC10 with one engine out and no hydraulics. Jointly, they saved about half the souls on board a plane everyone and every simulation said was uncontrollable. Big caveat – Haynes, his co-pilot and the deadheading instructor pilot who also participated were very senior pilots, no doubt with decades of mistakes avoided and mistakes they’d never make again. No guarantee today’s pilots come in with the same starting level of flight experience and the same need to actually fly the planes as they go forward in their careers.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          With a ground-borne vehicle, you want to know the best fail-safe? Pull the car over to the side and call a roll-back. Once we reach full autonomy in cars, there will be no stopping the technology. Yes, you will have manual override…for a while. But once it proves itself, legislation will demand autonomy in all cars for use on state and Federal highways and in traffic-dense metropolitan areas.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    I would suggest people read authors like Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov and others. This overblown “fear of autonomy” was forecast almost 100 years ago for pretty much the reasons described here. Their novels go on to show that such fear is mostly unfounded, though modern takes on those old novels in movies play to that fear rather than attempting to alleviate it.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Good news, Vulpine…a computer just determined your job is no longer required. Expect to hear from the computer about your severance package. I’m sure that if you voice an objection, in the best tradition of that irrelevant idiot Arthur C. Clarke, you should take a stress pill and think it over, Dave.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        As usual, too little, too late, FM. My job IS the computer. I strongly recommend the series of robot stories by Isaac Asimov. Even robots need doctors, FM.

        Oh, and there’s a reason the satellite your TV signal comes through resides in the Clarke Belt. I suggest you do a little research.

      • 0 avatar

        You know, back in the industrial revolution saboteurs and luddites destroyed looms because they believed the machines threatened their livelihoods. Interesting that 100+ years later most people who are willing and able to work can find work.

        AUtomation will enable greater productivity and therefore more wealth overall. Resisting automation based on employment concerns is rather myopic.

    • 0 avatar
      tylanner

      I don’t think the fear of autonomy can be unfounded because the general definition of autonomy you describe cannot be bounded. We can attempt to couple any autonomous system with a set of humanist principals but it can never be held accountable to anything other than the contents of its pre-determined logic system.

      Auto makers must accompany the autonomous car with a moral structure but the laundry list of programmed moral dilemmas it will encounter will certainly be less than comprehensive.

      For example, an autonomous car is presented with a scenario where an accident will occur based on a lack of time to respond to a road obstruction. The car can choose to plow into the giant immovable obstruction which will ensure the death of its occupant or it can choose to avoid the object and mow down a group of bicyclists on the shoulder.

      A pragmatically programmed car will sacrifice the occupant in exchange for the damage it would do to innumerable pedestrians…

      A selfishly programmed car will avoid occupant G forces at all costs…even if the path involves greater loss of life…

      This is just one simple example that shows that this is not as simple as flipping the autonomous switch and we will save lives. The fears that come with autonomous devices are rational. The handoff from human to machine needs to be considered carefully and should not be taken lightly.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Asimov covers that with his Three Laws of Robotics. Now, admittedly it is somewhat simplified but the idea of K.I.S.S. comes into play. The more you try to fine-tune the rules with new rules, the more confusion you create. Better to replace a law than plug a new law on top of it.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Mercedes has already spoken. The driver of a Mercedes takes precedence over all others on the road. Their autonomous system will attempt to save the driver at all costs.

        • 0 avatar

          Indeed. The Mercedes AV system will mirror other Mercedes traits, such as straddling the dividing line between two parking spaces, which Mercedes drivers are entitled to do. This is important to ensure they don’t get “dings” to their expensive doors as may occur if parked within 2 feet of another car, as inconsiderate as other drivers are of Mercedes.

  • avatar
    stevelovescars

    Airplanes have trained pilots as a backup to those electronics. Modern cars use technologies to enhance driver awareness.

    My new Windows laptop with almost zero added programs crashes at least twice a day. Many new cars can’t even synchronize your phone and play music without issues.

    I worry that driver’s education is already lacking and the promise of autonomous cars will give people even less reason to learn what the heck they are doing and to pay attention.

    I understand the potential benefits to traffic flow, fuel economy, and safety, but we shouldn’t ignore new side effects like more distracted driving, the threat of hacking, and malfunctions as these things age and get buggy.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Indeed. Until autonomous cars have a proven track record for safety, it’s foolish not to be skeptical. Will they get there someday? Sure. But like every technology, there will be problems along the way. Then consider auto-makers’ tendencies to cut corners on safety–Corvair, Pinto, Citation, the GM ignition switch fiasco–well, there’s a lot of grounds for skepticism.

      Sure, airplane autopilots have proven themselves. But there aren’t a lot of obstacles to avoid in the friendly skies.

      Then there was the time we bought a batch of computers from Dell and they all had bad capacitors that died in less than two years….

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Corvair and Pinto weren’t “cut corners”, the issues they had were more due to ignorance of the consequences at the time. In fact, the later Corvairs were no worse than any other late-’60s vintage car and better than many. A simple anti-sway bar almost completely eliminated its tendency to oversteer, along with some modification to the front suspension.

        • 0 avatar
          Russycle

          Yes, the problem was fixed in later Corvairs…that’s the point. GM chose to ignore the issue until they were forced to address it. The anti-sway bar solution was known about before the Corvair went into production, but was cut to save a few bucks.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “The anti-sway bar solution was known about before the Corvair went into production, but was cut to save a few bucks.”

            I assume you have verifiable documentation to prove this…?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            There’s no doubt it was a “cost cutting” decision.

            “…the Chevrolet suspension engineer who had fought management’s decision to remove—for cost reasons—the front anti-sway bar installed on later models…”

            Maybe Google isn’t available where you’re at. But that’s correct, the Corvair wasn’t any more dangerous than its contemporary competitors, nor other swing-axle cars.

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            So Ralph Nader is the only evidence you have that it was a cost-cutting measure–where the Wiki follows up and says Ralph Nader was essentially wrong in subsequent objective testing by the NHTSA.

        • 0 avatar
          raph

          Heh GM’s fix for the oversteer issue was comically low air pressure on the front tires (around 15 psi as I recall) The Corvair also suffered from a swing axle rear suspension early on.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Heh GM’s fix for the oversteer issue was comically low air pressure on the front tires (around 15 psi as I recall) The Corvair also suffered from a swing axle rear suspension early on.”

            Explain to me how these are “cut corners from engineering”. And while you’re considering that, remember how Ford responded to its SUV rollovers by reducing tire pressure in the early ’00s before we got these “stability controls” in today’s new models.

  • avatar
    jmo

    The numbers seem to mirror the polls that show almost everyone thinks their an above average driver. The numbers also show folks have a decent sense of how terrible the average driver actually is.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      Most probably are. The worst drivers bring the average down low enough for most others to clear the bar. It’s pretty easy to figure out how much you’ve paid into automotive insurance vs. how much you’ve been responsible for extracting. If you’ve paid more into the system than your insurance has paid out, then you’re one of the people subsidizing the bad drivers.

      I suppose the proper phrasing of the question would be: “Do you believe you are an above median driver?”

  • avatar
    probert

    and I’m afraid of the average American.

  • avatar
    Halftruth

    All those in favor of automated this/that, put your kids in one of those cars/trains/planes/operating rooms etc.. Just put that fear away and if an oopsie happens (and it will).. Oh well. Isaac and Arthur ‘approved’. Please. I have been working in computers for a long time and have seen cpus/disks/mem (Enterprise HPC level stuff too) do all kinds of crazy sh*t due to dendriting, cosmic events and just plain bad hardware/code. Every single new piece of hardware and software ALWAYS has bugs that need to be addressed. You sure you want to be one of those “bugs’? Not I..

    I am not anti-progress but this whole automated thing is getting to be a pissing contest of sorts. “We did it first! Yay” And when people are hurt/killed.. “errrm ya, we weren’t counting on that.” Color me cautiously cautious : ) .

    • 0 avatar
      True_Blue

      You’re showing the right attitude, because you have the experience with the mechanisms the concept hinges on.

      Of course, I’d love my own transportation pod to whisk me from my job safely and to my waiting home (and garage).

      But we know it will fail, not just can. The problem is in what quantity and what is the “failure mode”, i.e. what will it do when it does inevitably fail?

      I would really like the option for (keyword) safe autonomous travel when I desire. But I know where that will take us with litigation, lawmaking, and eventual loss-of-choice in “manual” driving.

  • avatar
    brn

    Fear is good. It encourages caution.

    I’m afraid too, but I’m also looking forward to the day it becomes commonplace.

    • 0 avatar

      It also depends on what you are afraid of.

      The NHTSA agree that Tesla V1 Autopilot reduces collisions resulting in air bag deployments by 40%.

      I fear the idiot on the road close to me. I also acknowledge that I become that idiot from time to time.

      Not using autonomy as appropriate when available is both foolish and dangerous. It’s like not using a seat belt.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        And yet two Tesla accidents stick in my mind, both indicating that Tesla at least still has a serious deficiency in dealing with blank space, such as the side of a tractor trailer one Tesla wound up under-riding, and such as the Jersey barriers another Tesla sideswiped (TTAC covered in the past week). Maybe the highest level AUV software and sensors will catch that, but put me down as from Missouri at this time. Prove it.

        Another problem I have is determining when autonomy is appropriate and when it is not. Seems to be a problem for wealthy Tesla drivers too.

        • 0 avatar

          Musk would agree with you. His goal is to reduce the risks further. He’s indicated he is targeting 90% reduction in accidents over non autonomous vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          SCE to AUX

          Tesla is relying on the definition of Level 2 autonomy to exonerate their system deficiencies.

          When the definition requires an attentive driver at all times, Autopilot doesn’t really have to work perfectly – or even very well at all. And the driver taps agreement to this requirement every time Autopilot is activated.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “And yet two Tesla accidents stick in my mind,…”

          — Which conveniently ignores the fact that neither accident was under full autonomy, though the operators may have perceived it as such.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      I feel the need to clarify. By “it”, I meant autopilot, not fear. :)

  • avatar
    tedward

    Why does the tone of the article suggest that Americans are wrong in this anxiety?

    It’s a technology that does not exist yet, because driving aids, yes tesla’s too, aren’t autonomous cars. Top that off with companies insisting on beta testing what does exist on public roads and the public has been treated to a running list of their development issues (because that’s what you get when you force the rest of us to share your test cycle risk). Adding to that are a bunch of new entrants with zero reputation or experience in automobiles operating on the PR forefront.

    They scare me too, and I don’t know that I would tolerate them, as they exist now, in my community.

    • 0 avatar
      OldManPants

      But you tolerate the drunks, white hairs and young buck hormone rockets.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Why does the tone of the article suggest that Americans are wrong in this anxiety?”
      • Because they are. This is much more a fear of the unknown–a phobia as it were–than a reasoned decision.

      “It’s a technology that does not exist yet, because driving aids, yes tesla’s too, aren’t autonomous cars.”
      • But that’s not what these people were asked. And yes, there are some cars that are autonomous; Google has been test-driving a fleet of them for years, gradually improving the programming but using a sensor suite that can’t necessarily react quickly enough for timely action. Google’s cars have an incredible record of one known collision actually initiated by the AI itself, when it turned into the side of a bus. This revealed a flaw in both the sensor system (not realizing the bus was there) and the software (expecting the bus to do something different prior to initiating the maneuver that caused it to hit the bus.)
      Yes, I do agree that Tesla’s system wasn’t full autonomy but I also think the current sensor suite has the capability of a higher rate of data collection and the ability to ‘see’ and recognize objects approaching from any direction more accurately than the Lidar array and its relatively slow scan rate. Tesla’s system is designed to perceive in a manner similar to the human eye and brain and make conclusions based on that perception. It may not be perfect but it is more likely to avoid collisions once it is fine-tuned and be a better driver at any speed compared to Google’s methods.

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    I’m not afraid of AVs, but I sure am skeptical. Cribbing a little from tylanner above and rewording it too – “any autonomous system can never be held accountable to anything other than the contents of its pre-determined logic system.” To which I would add what it can glean from its sensors. Deficient scenarios and/or too few sensors can leave the AV functioning perfectly according to plan right up to the point of impact. Those scenarios and responses are developed by people, people you might not trust driving, based on some of the comments here. I have worked on largish multi-physics realtime simulators, the kind that are full fidelity, not just smoke generators. It is amazing how many branches there can be for even simple operations. The one you forget is just a heuristic teaching device in a simulator working with actual data logs, but can kill you in meat space.

    As an old guy who values his autonomy, I want there to be reliable AVs, and soon please. But a healthy dose of skepticism is called for. I’m not surprised millenials are more in favor of AVs than other age cohorts – not enough life experience yet to overcome their optimism.

  • avatar
    PentastarPride

    I’m not afraid of autonomous cars per se, I just think that they are yet another useless gimmick in our lives.

    I’m happy with the levels of technology we’ve had as a society 5-10 years ago. There’s a point where we are into this whole technological “advancement” thing too deeply. I think we’ve crossed it. The majority of technological advancements these days are unnecessary. They don’t solve a problem, they create more of them.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Would you feel that way if you were old or disabled and the robot car meant that you could leave the house on your schedule rather than your relatives’?

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        As someone who has just taken the keys away from my Father I have to agree that autonomous vehicles would not be a useless gimmick for many people. I know I’d take one vs getting my keys taken away.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      Every mode of transportation we’ve developed since walking is a “useless gimmick.” Technology as a whole is “unnecessary.” We don’t “need” it. And yet here we all are, talking about it on the Internet.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change -” — Heraclitus

      You can’t stop Change, PP, no matter how much you may want to. While technology does cause problems in one way, it solves other problems. Mankind has learned how to adapt the world to itself and is constantly moving forward. Now we need to learn how to adapt to the changes we, ourselves, are making.

  • avatar
    ajla

    If full AVs happen, then they happen and I hope it helps the elderly, disabled, etc.

    However, the ability to continue manually driving a vehicle on every public road I can right now is a hill I’m willing to die on.

  • avatar
    Shortest Circuit

    Every average person regardless of nationality should be rightfully afraid of autonomous vehicles. Have you had an app crash on your laptop this year? I mean month. Ok, did everything on your smartphone work at least yesterday? No? Yeah. This is the problem.

  • avatar
    TR4

    The “Average American” has approximately one testicle and approximately one ovary.

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    The average American also believes in angels, so I don’t know that I should take their input on autonomous transportation seriously.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • mrentropy: Little known fact: Texas is HUGE. Condemning all cars in Texas is… probably condemning the majority...
  • VW4motion: @siwired, This probably is a much cheaper to repair. But what’s up with the 2 in rear bumper that does...
  • Scoutdude: While I don’t trust Carfax to show every wreck they are pretty good about having a chain of license...
  • spookiness: Still, if I won a lottery of a certain minimum threshold, this is the car I’d buy, just because I...
  • Fordson: The Coyote makes more power and torque than the Nissan 5.6, and the EcoBoost 3.5 makes more power than the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States