The idea of driverless cars or “autonomous vehicles” sounds so far-fetched, many scoff at the likelihood of their implemention. Then again, how many people, not that long ago, expected to be able to watch movies on their telephones? I still cannot imagine doing so, even though the technology is available. But it’s my choice not to. That’s what driverless cars will be, if in fact they become widely available: a choice.
Some observers say there are several good reasons to believe they will not be popular.
It's just hype: Dale Buss wrote in Forbes last month, "Could the accelerating race among auto companies and Silicon Valley types toward driverless automobiles turn out to be a lot like the breathless derby to produce all-electric cars that still preoccupies much of the industry, even though, outside the "1 percent," it's pretty clear western consumers aren't all that interested?"
Traffic accidents have been declining for years anyway: Buss writes that it's "bogus" to believe driverless cars are needed to reduce auto accidents and fatalities. "The number of U.S. auto-crash fatalities was declining steadily for years until very recently, when distracted driving, thanks largely to texting, reared its ugly head. But surely there are less drastic solutions to that development than removing every American driver from behind the wheel."
Too much participation would be needed to make a difference: Buss quotes Holman Jenkins, who recently argued in The Wall Street Journal, "Those who think the driverless car is just around the corner will be sorely disappointed. To revel in the future that the visionaries hold out, the obstacles are nearly insurmountable." His point, Buss writes, was that for anyone's driverless system to be effective, every driver in America would have to be involved. And the legal, cultural and regulatory obstacles to such an outcome just won't allow that to happen. It would also require expensive onboard systems and wireless networking that would escalate privacy concerns.
Devil's in the fine print: Michelle Krebs, an analyst for AutoTrader.com, writes, "There are so many legal and insurance and regulatory issues, and none of them are being resolved. The challenges for law enforcement will be huge, as well."
Still, they could have some merit: Such cars, Krebs writes, "will not be driverless completely; they will be cars you have the choice to drive or not drive. There are certain places this approach makes sense, such as heavy commuting cities where autonomous cars could run essentially like train cars without a track — mass transit. That makes brilliant sense. Or these cars could be programmed to handle most responsibilities on long, boring drives, including commutes. In those ways, they will extend the mobility of aging baby boomers, which is where the biggest market is, if you believe that millennials really don't want to drive. … It'll be basically like it is now with EVs and hybrids — most people still will be driving traditional cars."
