Where is the middle ground? In the self-driving car debate, I only see the extremes of the positions. Surely it will end in a compromise.

I own two classic cars (well, one of them will be soon enough). By virtue of their age, they are obviously not self-driving and never will be. But I hope to have them in my possession 30-40 years from now, because I like them very much.

I believe I like driving, because I only do it for fun. I either take the train or bike to work, depending on the weather, so I am not beholding to my cars. Hence why I don't own a modern car.

I recognise that my position is unique, but I would sad to lose my ability to drive my cars on the road (and my collection may grow in the future). I understand people's desire for self-driving cars, and I'm glad if they get them. As long as I can drive my old-timey cars.

Indeed, once there are more electric cars than petrol powered cars on the roads, getting petrol will be harder. But that's OK, as long as it's still possible.

My position is; I may not personally need self-driving cars, but I respect others' desire to want them. But articles like this make me cringe, I hope I don't need to explain why.

"Manifesto" talk aside, this is the same discussion about automation styles: Ironman vs. Ultron.

I'm a huge fan of Ironman automation method - augment, not replace the humans - since it takes the boring and error prone parts away, and utilizes humans for the edge cases. There's a lot of potential for huge wins for low costs. And, absolutes aside, that's in line with this article.

The alternative Ultron method - take the humans out entirely - is simply too expensive and error prone. It's absurdly common to watch entire automated assembly lines grind to a halt because of corner cases that have to be fixed by humans. We're seeing the same thing with automated vehicles - when corner cases are hit, they pull over and signal for human intervention.

So, I guess I agree with the author, though in a less stylish way. Please make me a better driver; don't remove me from the seat entirely. Just imagine that fancy VR simulation they showed from the Waymo cars made available as HUD data for a regular driver. How much would that alone help with safety on the road?

I don't like driving, and I'd rather read the news, read a book, or type out an email, play the guitar, or for that matter, sip on my favorite cocktail. And seeing as how many drivers can't put away their cell phones while operating a motor vehicle, my guess is most people would rather be doing something else too, at least most of the time. Self-driving cars is my dream come-ing true.

I'm fine with reserving the right to manually operate a vehicle; too many situations in which an autonomous vehicle will just not understand what needs to be done.

I'm rather more concerned that without needing to operate the vehicle, and the design modification of the car to be more conducive to social activities, riding in a vehicle will become an even more attractive leisure activity, clogging traffic while people netflix (& chill) in their pleasure barges.

I doubt such a lobbying effort will be necessary. You can still ride around in a horse-drawn carriage on most public roads. It seems far-fetched to think human-powered driving will be made illegal, it's far more likely that most people will just opt-out of it.

I also expect once autonomous vehicles are the majority of cars we'll see stricter enforcement of speeding laws. When everyone is speeding because that's the norm, you don't stand out. When every other car is self-driving at the limit and you're going 20 over in your Corvette, you stand out like a sore thumb. The UK already uses average speed cameras. I think the only reason they aren't widespread elsewhere is simply because many people speed.

> From my cold, dead hands.

This makes the whole thing sound like a NRA-style clickbait article and nothing more.

That said, I am not exactly a fan of how autonomous vehicle scene is unfolding with lot of investments being made by ride sharing companies. And these guys have signed a "Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities" [0] which states:

WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS. Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.

[0]: https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/

Ugh, no. Human drivers kill about 1.3 million people per year. Since the second world war, human drivers have killed more people than all wars and genocides put together. This is personal for me: human drivers have murdered far too many of my friends. I can't wait for the world to be rid of them.

Oh, wait, at the bottom of the article, now we're saying that we need an NRA-style lobby for human driving? As in: an ideologically blinkered death cult beholden to narrow corporate interests (in this case, rather than gun manufacturers, car manufacturers dependent on personal ownership of vehicles for their business model) with zero scruples about what sort of body count it facilitates? Is this a parody then?

The thing that scares me about self driving cars is that you won't be able to own one. You will have to buy a "plan"/"subscription" or some such nonsense. Then under the guise of safety they will out-law manual driven cars in order to increase their market share.

How do self-driving cars restrict your freedom? You can still tell it where you want to go at any time and it will take you. I'm very confused what freedom I'm losing? Is it to drive over a riverbed if I want to? Never done that. Not sure I'd want to.

This entire article is clickbait, where the author wants you to believe he is being persecuted or something.

> Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans.

This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody. These cars will hopefully exist and hopefully be a lot safer than humans but they certainly don't exist yet.

The author thinks that killing 30,000 people per year is a-okay and worth it for the 'freedom'. I disagree. It's not even freedom you get from driving yourself. You still have to stay on the roads and use a seatbelt and use your turn signals 100% of the time, etc. I would place a large bet that when the author drives, he breaks 10-20 safety laws each drive. Everyone does.

We should aim for 0 deaths per year and do everything in our power to get there. Taking the epic weapons away from people is not a reduced freedom. Self driving cars do not take away your freedom just as not owning an AR-15 does not take away your freedom.

The goal of self-driving cars is 0 deaths/year. If that is not your goal of safety without self-driving cars, then you don't care about safety period. The selfishness exhibited in "I don't care if more people are dying on average, I want to drive and you can't take it away from me" is insane.

> If our safety was the experts' first principle, the billions invested in self-driving cars would have gone to subsidizing free professional driving school, raising licensing standards, and making critical safety technologies like seat belts, airbags, ABS and automatic emergency braking (AEB) standard as soon as they were invented

No that is not what they would have done. They would be building self driving cars if they cared about safety.

People are not going to be better drivers if you give them more classes. They will still get drink and kill 5 innocent people on their way home from the bar.