Self-driving vehicles

Chicago's Proposed Ban of Self-Driving Cars Is Dangerous and Protectionist

Two city aldermen say it's about protecting pedestrians, but it's really about protecting taxi companies.


(c) / Fotofeeling/Newscom

Cars with drivers killed 46 pedestrians in Chicago last year (and killed more than 4,000 of them nationally) but city aldermen Edward Burke and Anthony Beale say the only way to keep pedestrians safe in the Second City is to ban autonomous cars.

Autonomous, or self-driving, cars are responsible for exactly one death in the United States this year. It wasn't a pedestrian and it wasn't in Chicago.

No matter, though. With Uber now testing four driverless cars on the streets of Pittsburgh, the two alderman want to make it clear that they don't support that sort of innovation in the Second City. The proposed ordinance would include fines of $500 for anyone using an autonomous vehicle.

"No technology is one-hundred percent safe," said Burke, who represents the city's 14th Ward, in a statement.

Indeed, he's right about that. It's fun to imagine what the world might be like if policymakers were to ban every technology that was not 100 percent safe, as Burke seems to believe they should, but it's also immediately apparent that such an idea is ludicrous on its face.

Life is full of risks and nothing is completely safe. A handful of people are killed every year by their own clothing, while about a dozen others are killed by their furniture. Does that mean we should be naked and never have any place to sit? Of course it doesn't.

Burke and Beale point to the lone fatal accident in the short history of self-driving cars as justification for their proposed ban. The death of Joshua Brown, an Ohio man who was killed in May when his self-driving Tesla collided with a tractor-trailer, is a tragedy but the reality is that autonomous cars are many times safer than any motor vehicle being operated by a human being.

The National Highway Safety Administration estimates that 94 percent of automobile accidents in the U.S. are the result of human error. Self-driving cars will make mistakes, and those mistakes might kill some people, but "autonomous vehicles are never drunk, distracted or tired," noted the RAND Corporation in a study released in April. Those factors account for 41 percent, 25 percent and 2.5 percent of all fatal car accidents, respectively, according to RAND.

If Burke and Beale are worried about safety, maybe they should be banning everything except driverless cars.

Of course this isn't really about pedestrian safety. It's really about protectionism.

Burke has a long history of ties to Chicago's taxi industry. His law firm has contracted with Yellow Cab since at least 1997. In 2015, he and Beale teamed up to sponsor a measure that would have imposed hefty new taxes on ridesharing companies like Uber. Burke has also supported requiring ridesharing drivers to obtain chauffer's licenses and get fingerprinted by the city before being allowed to pick-up passengers.

It's also worth nothing that Beale and Burke in 2015 each received $10,000 from the Illinois Transportation Trade Association Political Action Committee, the campaign arm of the taxi industry in Chicago. That might also have something to do with their proposal to ban autonomous cars—a ban that figures to hurt Uber, the taxi company's biggest competition.

Uber, and other ride-sharing services, figure to be the biggest beneficiaries (at least in the short term) of autonomous vehicle technology. The ridesharing giant has made no secret of its desire to use self-driving cars in more places. The current testing in Pittsburgh includes a human engineer in the front seat with the ability to take over control of the car if necessary.

"Indeed, Beale and Burke's ordinance looks like a protective measure—they are protecting the special interests of the taxicab industry, at the cost of ordinary Chicagoans," says Amy Korte, an editor for the Illinois Policy Institute, which tracked the campaign contributions to the two aldermen.

Sadly, this isn't the only time politicians are likely to get in the way of transportation innovation. As Reason's Ron Bailey noted in the July edition of the magazine, the U.S Senate has already held hearings to investigate possible regulations for self-driving cars and at least 53 bills have been introduced in 23 states to do the same.

Efforts to keep autonomous cars off the road will probably end up as historical oddities—like bans on automobiles that took hold in parts of New England and West Virginia during the early 20th Century as reactionaries worried about the safety and pollution caused by the horseess carriages. Compared to the awful safety record of those early cars, the self-driving vehicles of today look even more unassailably safe.

Autonomous cars will make the world a safer place for passengers, pedestrians and other drivers. By claiming they are concerned about pedestrian safety, Burke and Beale are being disingenuous and just plain wrong.

NEXT: Donald Trump Was Right to 'Float Rolling Back Food Safety Regs'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow, that was fast.

    Sometimes libertarians like to suggest that legislation follows social movements and doesn’t lead them, there are cases where this isn’t true. I believe that there are several states (Michigan being one) that already had laws on the books not allowing ‘automated (self driving)’ vehicles and are having to pass new laws to either allow them, or at least allow them for testing until they’re ready for prime time (which is gonna require a lot of states and localities to start, you know, painting fucking lines on the streets).

    1. If autonomous cars can’t yet handle streets and roads without clearly painted lines perhaps they should stick to test tracks and Tomorrowland.

      1. Human beings cannot drive safely without clear designators. It’s sine qua non for autonomous vehicles, too. What the fuck do you think they’re reacting to, except for one another?

    2. Speaking of lines painted on the streets, how well have self driving cars been doing on icy or snow covered roadways? They will have to function under these conditions. I know, I know, obviously no humans can drive on ice or snow so the self driving cars will be better because technology. But I’d like to see how well they do before buying one.

      1. I think one of the companies is attempting to get a car to navigate a dirt road, with limited success. It likes the middle. Which doesn’t really work, because dirt roads are usually less than 2 full lanes wide.

        1. Yeah, but that’s how humans drive on dirt roads too: towards the middle. Then, approaching another car or hill crest or blind curve, you slow down and drift back to the right.

          1. “Dirt Road”? “Hershey Highway”? “Drive toward the middle”?

            The scatology on this site is getting to be a bit much.

          2. this is very true. From what I saw, the car just doesn’t like the edge.

            1. Which proves that the programming is right. You don’t drive on the edge of a dirt road, neither do I. Why? Because it’s not as safe. Why bust the chops of an AI driving the same way?

              1. I should clarify that the one i saw would drive over the edge into the culvert.

            2. The car hasn’t really *seen* an edge.

              When they can drive an overloaded bus along these roads – then Humanity will be obsolete.


  2. If Burke and Beale are worried about safety, maybe they should be banning everything except driverless cars.

    Oh they will. Just give it a few years.

    1. Once the monetary incentives switch to that.

  3. Ah yes, Chicago, with such a rich tradition of protecting its citizens.

    1. I believe that they believe they are protecting their citizens.

      All wars are defensive.

      1. I believe that they believe they are protecting their citizens.

        When it comes to Chicago, never attribute to altruism that which can be explained by corruption and control-freakery.

  4. The National Highway Safety Administration estimates that 94 percent of automobile accidents in the U.S. are the result of human error.

    For what it’s worth, I estimate that at least initially, 94% of automobile accidents after self-driving cars have become a thing will be the result of human error.

    1. The issue is, will it be human error applied on the spot, or human error writen intot he code and thus mutiplied thousands of times.

  5. So, the fact that they couch this as a “safety issue” instead of coming right out and saying “taxi protectionism” seems to indicate that the truth would cause an uproar…and yet the voters keep putting these bozos in office…why?

    1. The voters are the… union members?

      1. Sure, so why couch the issue at all, why not come right out and say it?

        That’s the conundrum I am having.

        1. hmm, bring the corruption right out into the light of day like they do in Seattle… I like the cut of your jib.

    2. I don’t see that it HAS to be taxi protection. The joke used to be that if the automobile had followed the same developmet path as the personal computer, it would cost far les, go a great deal faster, and blow up every six months. I don’t really want to see that made real, thanks.

  6. So who is liable for any crash? Why is this never discussed in any self-driving car article? Because until you can resolve that, they will never be anything more than an experiment. There are too many potential factors on the road to take safely into account.

    1. The owner of the car is liable for any death, dismemberment, or damage caused by her property.

      1. I have a hard time believing that will happen. It was auto pilot. So it’s tesla’s fault. No, says tesla. It’s the programmer who wrote the code that told the car not to swerve if there’s a small object in front of the car. And on and on they go

        1. Why, I believe that with my somewhat limited experience with the insurance industry (and I have a family member who spent and is still working in that industry– claims adjustment/management/law) that’s about exactly how it’ll be handled.

          Trust me when I say this, if you don’t think the insurance industry doesn’t have its finest lawyers already working this out– or have a template, you’re fooling yourself.

          1. That’s fair. I just think about the hot coffee lawsuits. I’d there’s full automation, why would the driver be responsible. They didn’t do anything to cause the accident/manslaughter.

            1. Well, there are a couple of aspects… there’s the insurance aspect, then the legal aspect.

              If you were at fault, the po-po would write you a ticket. It’s possible that the municipality won’t hand you a ticket– because you weren’t in control of the vehicle.

              1. “I make my cars with such good brakes, such good steering, that if people get into a crash it’s their own fault” and “I don’t design my cars to have accidents”- Issigonis

      2. Or the car’s manufacturer, or the municipality that failed to paint clear lines marking the lanes (or failed to keep them clear of leaves, sand or snow), or the bar which served the self-driving car’s owner…

        1. That’s what will happen if the insurance company refuses to pay the claim, a lawsuit will be filed against the municipality and a lot of lawyers hours will get placed on the ledger.

          If you’ve ever been involved in a lawsuit, that’s… kind of what it looks like.

          Example: Back in the 90s, a doctor’s office (one of our clients) had a fire in their clinic. The adjuster determined the fire started with a dot matrix printer that we installed and serviced. We literally got a letter from the insurance company which read– almost word for word, “please remit $30,000 for the fire your printer caused”. After that, the lawyers got involved and that was the last I heard of it.

          Well, not the last I heard of it. In my next job, one of our clinics took over a space that was freshly remodeled and the office manager said “yeah, there was a fire here, the doctor [our former client] fought with the insurance company– and eventually had to close the clinic”.

          I just nodded quietly and smiled.

    2. In the end, I believe the vehicle will be covered through the manufacturer, for its lifetime, contingent upon periodic inspection. The vehicle will have no alternate emergency means of control.

      Reason being, an autonomous vehicle that requires a human minder is worse, in all ways I can imagine, than a traditional one. Statistically, it is guaranteed to be more dangerous, due to the time it takes its minder to notice a problem, shift focus, take control, and avoid an accident. For the same reason, I think most people would find it more stressful to operate, as well. It is a minefield in terms of who is liable for any accidents it causes.

      On the other hand, once a manufacturer is able to perfect it to the point that they are able to convince an insurer of its safety and reliability, I think that manufacturer will be in a position to upset the automotive market in a way it has not been, since its inception.

      1. Reason being, an autonomous vehicle that requires a human minder is worse, in all ways I can imagine, than a traditional one. Statistically, it is guaranteed to be more dangerous, due to the time it takes its minder to notice a problem, shift focus, take control, and avoid an accident. For the same reason, I think most people would find it more stressful to operate

        If I have a self-driving vehicle and I have to be just as watchful and mindful of the stupidity of my fellow human drivers, I don’t want a self-driving car. I’m one of those types that not only watches the other cars, but I also observe the head movements of the driver ahead or beside me to anticipate the next dumb thing they’re going to do. As a result, I’ve been driving for well over 30 years and never had so much as a fender bender.

        I’d like to relax for a while. I’m only interested if I can nap in the back with my aroma-therapy candles.

      2. I suggest that people will be required to carry no fault insurance, which will be the default way to pay for accidents. If an issuance company believes they can prove the manufacturer is at fault, they can sue. But, chances are that the law will require the programming to have built in ethics along the line of the trolley car problem, i.e., the car will choose to crash instead of causing a bigger accident or mowing down a bunch of pedestrians in the crosswalk. As long as the occupant’s death was caused by programming following those parameters, as opposed to faulty programming, then the no fault insurance will pay the occupant’s estate x amount of dollars.

        1. I am pretty sure the medical device industry has precedents that will cover all this.

  7. Teslas are not “autonomous, or self-driving,” certainly not in the sense that the autonomous Uber test vehicles in Pittsburgh are. Teslas have optional speed-control (Traffic Aware Cruise Control) and lane-keeping (AutoSteer) features intended for use on divided thoroughfares with the driver’s hands on the wheel. Not even the most foolhardy owner/user could get a Tesla to operate as an autonomous taxi.

  8. The Tesla isn’t an autonomous vehicle. It has a cruise control feature that can drive the car for you, but it is definitely not marketed as a self-driving car. The company makes it plenty clear that the driver still has to pay attention and be ready to take over at any time if the vehicle may encounter circumstances beyond its programmed capabilities.

    That said, it’s still way safer than human drivers.

    1. Then how the fuck could you ever relax?

      1. Because the driver’s seat is stuffed with 100 dollar bills. I don’t know man. I don’t know why you would pay several extra thousand dollars for that shit. Unless maybe you drive drunk a lot or like to drive all night after working all day.

        And in both those cases you’re still expecting the car to take over for you after you’ve stopped paying attention. For those sorts of people I guess it could be useful – like a fighter’s computer detecting and avoiding a ground crash because the pilot blacked out.

        For the rest of us, its just a waste of money.

  9. The liability will likely remain with the vehicle manufacturers. The CEO of Volvo has already stated they are responsible for any accidents caused by a failure of their autonomous technology.

  10. OT

    Trump had a good quip today: “It used to be that they made cars in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now they make the cars in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint.”

    It got a sensible chuckle out of me.

    1. I’ll now forever think you look like this.

    2. FWIW, I heard that line several months ago.

      1. Ooh, watch out, this guys home page is reddit.

    3. Meh, you still can’t drink the water in Mexico.

  11. How many people were killed by percentage of overall cars on the road?

  12. Apparently aldermen Burke and Beale (great name for a show, btw) don’t care if yinzers are run down in the street by Skynet’s chauffeur. Only their precious Chicagoans are worthy of being saved. If they cared at all they would run for national office and make sure the entire country of pedestrians are protected.

    1. Where’s Jack & Ace?

      Maybe the Attorney General for the state of New York needs to investigate the Clinton campaign for fraud.

      1. I think it’s actually a federal crime.

        1. As every letter-to-the-editor in every newspaper in the USA this week said, “Everyone’s been going after Hillary trying to get her guilty on something for thirty years, and she’s been proven innocent every single time. Perhaps it’s time the extreme right give up their wild goose chase and finally recognize she’s a dedicated, honest, hard-working public servant.”

          By the way, how is it that there are almost identical letter-to-the-editors of the Democrat talking points each week, in all the newspapers in the USA, always from different people in different towns than the letter was from the previous week? Do you suppose there’s a Democrat network that sends out letters to supporters and says, “Won’t you send in this letter to your local newspaper, claiming that you wrote it? It’s your turn this week.” Or do they just generate random names and towns and send them in to the newspapers themselves, and the newspapers just go “oh, here’s a good one against the gun nuts/Trump backers/Zionists/wealthy/racists/Repubiicans or whoever/whatever we don’t like” and print it without checking if such a person even exists?

          1. I think it’s a combination of coordinated messaging and uncoordinated agreement. The best messaging is convincing and aligns with what some people already believe.

            That said, there are a huge number of such “coincidences.” E.g., even in Daily Mail comments, it’s been noted that there seem to be an awful lot of upvotes for certain pro-Hillary posts, which is highly unlikely for the Daily Mail. I think Correct The Record has armies of people online doing such things.

            1. Correct the Record exists to do exactly that.

    2. I don’t know why they are complaining, if she wins that money will go away anyway.

  13. The Uber cars being hyped in the media as “driverless” in Pittsburgh may be autonomous, but they aren’t without drivers.

    In every one of those Uber cars, there’s a driver whose job it is to override the controls if ever the autonomous car looks like it isn’t avoiding a crash.

    1. Are these jokers in Chicago outlawing driverless cars with drivers?

      1. Yes. I believe they are outlawing the technology. They don’t care if you’re behind the wheel, once you engage autopilot, you’re in violation of the law.

  14. Jewett Williams update

    People are arguing on the Internet about where a Civil War veteran should be buried.

    1. Their hand-waving is meant to distract us.

    2. Every day we stray further from Harambe’s light.

      1. + 1 Dicks Lights Out for Harambe

  15. Ah yes, the “let’s ban it before even trying it” mentality of your local pol.

  16. Driverless cars have potential to make life a lot simpler for me as a consumer and an alcoholic.

    I just know that the the assholes who get to write laws are going to make sure that never happens.

    1. -1 Uber, -1 Lyft, -1 Arcade City.

      1. Or, to simplify the equation, +1 Austin.

    2. Yeah the best use for these things is long distance commuting and bar hopping. One might make it to the general public.

  17. Over the last 100 years, millions of people in the U.S. alone have died in automobile accidents. Just think of all those lives we could have saved had we had the foresight of Chicago aldermen and banned the automobile.

    1. If we just had a few more rules, regulations, and safeguards we would all live forever.
      Why are you opposed to politicians legislating immortality?

  18. By claiming they are concerned about pedestrian safety, Burke and Beale are being disingenuous and just plain wrong.

    You know who else was disingenuous and just plain wrong?

    1. Huh, forgot the backslash thingy

      1. Search “SIV is right” on Reason. I’m always right. “SIV is correct” and SIV has a point” return many hits as well. My truthful candor, correct opinions, and accurate fact-checking are well documented in the archive of this blog’s comments.

        My fellow commenters frequently acknowledge my superior command-of-the-facts, insights , and thoughtful, convincing, well-argued opinions

        1. You just copy-pasted that from Cytotoxic, didn’t you. It was funnier in the original.

          1. You know would else’s jokes were funnier in the original?

  19. Ultimately this is going to end up being the opposite argument, where the government will want to ban people from driving cars because autonomous ones will be safer.

    I say fuck that and fuck you to all of it. I like driving. Autonomous cars suck. And they’re gonna be a giant pain in the ass to drive behind when they go exactly 25 MPH and come to complete stops for a full two seconds at every stop sign when nobody else is at the intersection.

    1. She actually looks pretty there. I hope she gets better. Also, her father’s hat is wonderful.

      1. Pass. Love that her attorney is putting out the human trafficking spin against the cops though.



          (sorry, that was intended for someone else ;^}

  20. OT: ‘Harambe’ back in business after temporary jersey ban

    TW: ESPN, Darren Rovell

    Fans who want to customize their favorite teams’ jerseys with “Harambe” on the back can do so once again as of Thursday, after the name mistakenly appeared on a retailer’s list of banned words.

    “Harambe” was subsequently added to the banned list for the other leagues, including the NFL, which received the majority of the blame on social media Wednesday even though league officials had nothing to do with the decision.

    As word began to circulate of the banning, Fanatics officials decided that “Harambe” didn’t belong on the list, which includes thousands of words, made up mostly of profane and slang words. On Thursday morning, “Harambe” was removed from the list.

    Gasy Jasy should go after the Harambe vote! That’s how you get your 15%, Gasy Jasy! Harambe are legion!

    1. Direct example of hugbox carpenters costing people money. Dicks out for my 7th favorite mammal!

    2. Can I get the name if the guy who shot Harambe on a jersey?

      1. I don’t think “Worse than Hitler” will fit.

  21. I would like to go ahead and propose a ban on time travel before it’s too late.

    1. The ban worked. And then it didn’t. Fucking paradoxes…paradoxii…whatever.

  22. Also no squirrel voting. They would all vote multiple times.

  23. OT
    Get a recorded call (and it recorded while I was out, rather than dead time); some sleaze operation posing as the IRS and claiming the IRS is going to ‘bring suit’. And they leave a phone number.
    Well, we’re in the innertubze age, right? So I search up ‘reporting IRS fraud”, which actually covers more ground than I thought they’d admit, but I finally find ‘phone fraud posing as IRS’, figuring I’ll leave a short note and the phone number.
    Nope, they want eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence. Or something near to that…
    Fuck it.

    1. Go sit on the group W bench

      1. What’re you in for?

    2. I let an unknown number go to voicemail today, and got a partial message. The part I heard was that supposedly an IRS agent wanted to talk to me. Yeah, I don’t think so.

      The FTC has a web page for reporting spam calls, but it’s an incredibly long form to fill out.

      1. “The FTC has a web page for reporting spam calls, but it’s an incredibly long form to fill out.”

        It’s almost like they don’t care!
        Why did I even presume they did; it’s just more paper fro them to shuffle at the same pay and who cares if some taxpayers get defrauded? No skin off their noses.

  24. Burke and Beale point to the lone fatal accident in the short history of self-driving cars as justification for their proposed ban. The death of Joshua Brown, an Ohio man who was killed in May when his self-driving Tesla collided with a tractor-trailer, is a tragedy but the reality is that autonomous cars are many times safer than any motor vehicle being operated by a human being.

    Brown wasn’t driving an *autonomous* car. He was driving a car with an advanced form of autopilot and stopped paying attention.

    His car wasn’t ‘self-driving’ and owners are warned to always be paying attention and ready to take control because that style of car isn’t capable of true self-driving.

    So no one should be using him as an example of a ‘self-driving car fatality’.

    He’s an example of the ‘safety valley’ that self-driving cars will have to cross – as more stuff gets automated, safety can sharply decrease because there’s now enough stuff automated that the idiot driver feels he can doze off or FacePageTime or something before the automation gets reliable and capable enough to remove the need for the driver at all.

    Tesla is the one putting out the dangerous cars – where they’re smack in the middle of that valley.

  25. Time to dismantle fraternities and the sexism, rape culture and binge drinking they encourage

    This was provoked by some comments from a KA chapter @U Richmond which, to be honest, struck me as fairly bullshit bluster. “look out virgins, here we come”.

    *noted: KA had something of a reputation in my day. It was considered the most “southern” of the Frats, and was famous for some racist-ish behavior at UVA in the late 80s, and Vandy when i was there; the most notable one was to make pledges dress up like Confederate soldiers and march back and forth in front of black fraternities. And it wasn’t like a one-time thing. examples. I was actually once kicked out of one of their parties for “being a yankee”, (*my date was the president of her sorority, and the 2 were having a joint function. they were upset to learn that they didn’t have unilateral “kick yankees out” authority) Most people thought they were silly and boorish (duh), but at least it kept them all in one place. It allowed the rest of the frats to be comparatively ‘cool’ by sucking away all the redneck-mooks

    1. **double footnote = KA was kicked off Vandy campus in 2004, then again in 2012 for unspecified ‘hazing’ related complaints. I found this detail sort of funny =

      For the duration of Kappa Alpha’s suspension, the Kappa Alpha house was given to Vanderbilt’s three African-American fraternities, Alpha Phi Alpha, Phi Beta Sigma and Omega Psi Phi. These fraternities did not previously have a specific facility for meeting

      1. Kappa Alpha or Alpha Delta?

  26. The bigger concern down the road will be the outlawing of manual driving due to safety concerns after self driving cars have reached critical mass. Anyway taking away personal freedoms on the road in the name of safety is one of the government’s favorite hobbies. Ever wonder if driving over 65 MPH is so unsafe why do sleep deprived big rig drivers still manage 65? Their vehicle is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a typical sedan.

    1. Big rig drivers aren’t sleep deprived – after all, government mandates appropriate rest periods and requires they keep a log.

      Plus, ‘Ever wonder if driving over 65 MPH is so unsafe why do sleep deprived big rig drivers still manage 65?’ doesn’t really mean anything. For whatever reason you’re taking as a prior assumption that rig drivers are normally safer and smarter than the rest of the schlubs on the road. They’re not.

  27. Poll: It’s the year 2037. Self-driving cars are:

    a) outlawed
    b) the only cars allowed on the road
    c) optional, and I am way too optimistic to be a libertarian!

    1. Cars? I remember cars. We used to use them for getting around before travel was forbidden to non-Party members. Why, if you can believe it, people used to live in one town–and work in another! Yup.

    2. a. We need to show we don’t want this not as a protectionist solution but proof that the safety of Americans are at stake. Bad ideas adopted by America are eventually adopted by every country in the world.

  28. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ?????

  29. I am not offended by this. Whatever their actual motivations, I would want this shit sorted out in another city before implementing whatever infrastructure proves necessary for safe operation.

  30. I live in Chicago. With no lines on the streets, pot holes, pedestrians jumping off every curb, double parked delivery trucks and desperate errand runners, bicyclists who follow proper traffic rules if you’re lucky, and serious congestion, it’s a huge undertaking. What a cluster show this will be.

  31. Uber cabs being built up in the media as “driver-less” in Pittsburgh might be self-ruling, however they aren’t without drivers. In each one of those Uber cabs, there’s a driver whose employment it is to supersede the controls if at any point the self-sufficient auto appears as though it isn’t maintaining a strategic distance from an accident.

  32. I imagine there will be an enormous backlash from truck and bus drivers if self-driving vehicles start killing jobs left and right. I wouldn’t be surprised if they manage to get legislation banning self-driving trucks and buses, or at least banning such vehicles from operating without an employed driver.

  33. The studies by some private companies prove self-driving vehicles have caused trouble. I believe the idea of outlawing self-driving vehicles is a good idea. Their have been innovations outlawed for Public Safety in the past. Their are ideas that are not needed because if you don’t want to spend on welfare then you better think twice. This lets replace people with machines is not a good idea since I said it would lead to increase in welfare payments. Once someone tested a machine piloted plane but it was struck down because it would lead to massive deaths. The self-Driving vehicle people are withholding flaws. The flaws include crashing into vehicles that have people driving. The FDA has outlawed certain foods for good reasons and those outlaw for not good reasons mainly being overblown. But outlawing self-driving vehicles is smart and studies have already shown it is dangerous on the road.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.