Mazda Finds 71% of Europeans Don't Want Full Self-Driving Cars

[KungFury]

Such as? Remember, the issue at hand is susceptibility to hacking. Airplanes have to go up and down in addition to forward/stop and left/right, so their methods of controlling movement safely are obviously more complicated--not to mention staying up in the sky. Why would they be less vulnerable to a cyber attack?

Stringent federal regulations? It does stand to reason that property you own and accept the risks of using differs greatly than hiring transport from a large industry.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Such as? Remember, the issue at hand is susceptibility to hacking. Airplanes have to go up and down in addition to forward/stop and left/right, so their methods of controlling movement safely are obviously more complicated--not to mention staying up in the sky. Why would they be less vulnerable to a cyber attack?

Good question
Number of riders of the planes ( when we count the planes ) are not as much as number of riders of the cars ( if we counted the number of cars ) which gives less reason to target it when automated cars increases.
It could be more vulnerable & it could not be ( as i stated similarly - it -could- be less vulnerable ) with adding also that it also depends on the type of plane model & age.
So the simple answer is :
Cars are more available than planes & cars has more riders than planes.

If the safety of the cars are powerful enough like for example hilariously :
That cars uses a very strong kind of sponge or balloons to obsurb high speed impacts - it'll give less reason to have automated cars
Or like - bumper airbags ?

 

[polysmut]

I thought you suggested earlier that you were concerned about it purely because it's not impossible. It looks like I misunderstood, in which case ignore my questions about other hypotheticals.
You're saying this is definitely real?

Yes - very real.
Or should i say - more real than you think.
Feel free to laugh if you think what i say is insane - but sooner or later - i hope that you'll know the truth.
If you read enough about what was covered about them - you'll see for yourself.

I didn't say that THERE IS a plan to do so.
I said THERE COULD BE a plan.

Aww, come on. Help us out here.

Give me a towel to wipe the sweat out of my brow - since it is tiresome to keep up with 4 or 5 people replying to me at the same time X)
My thumps are crying for trying to speed up my replies to keep up with the multiple replies.

There's no need to hurry. Take your time, it'll be easier.

 

[KungFury]

If the safety of the cars are powerful enough like for example hilariously :
That cars uses a very strong kind of sponge or balloons to obsurb high speed impacts - it'll give less reason to have automated cars
Or like - bumper airbags ?

I love this idea

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Aww, come on. Help us out here.


There's no need to hurry. Take your time, it'll be easier.

You mixed wrong things together.
The previous post was about plans to conquer the world.
The next one is the possibility to use automated assassination.
In short :
When i said yes it's real - it's world canquer plan.
But automated cars i said THEY COULD.
That should help solve your misunderstanding of wrong mixes of replies.

Luckily i found a proof of a part of the master plan which they intend to do - here is video :
Note : it's up to you to believe or not, and in my defense - i don't exactly know the exact complixity in politics so please spare me of questioning because the answers are already outside with people with better knowledge than me.
I honestly don't want to continue longer of this conversation because it'll take more from my time & mind.
There are people out there with better visions & explanations with proofs better than i do.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Imagine over 100.000.000 automonus deaths by a push of a button by the hacker or a glitch in 1 min - compared to 50 years of human faults for cars accidents.
That is 100x worse than both nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Pick all of the planes in the world to make over a thousand 9-11s ... casualties may not even hit 1 million.
9-11 case were manually operated - so the hate should be directed to the terrorists - if it was fully autopilot which caused the incident - then the hate should be directed to the technology engineering for not allowing a human pilot to take controls in case of a computer fault or a hack by allowing human pilot to cut off connections of autopilot to manually operate the plane.
Those who swore off automobiles - we all know that they should direct their hate to the less safe vehicles & drivers - not the automobile itself.
Accidents can happen even on the horse carriage days where horses steps on the victims crushing their bones accidentally.
But it's a whole different story when the automobile is fully automated when a hack or glitch is in place.
I hope my point was understandable <

That depends. If your point was to pitch the next Roland Emmerich disaster movie, you've done a wonderful job.

9/11 had 2977 casualties. So your math is way off. Nevermind the fact you're suggesting a simultaneous killing of 1/70th of the world's population.

What you're talking about is so beyond unlikely that we might as well declare war on lightning. Or asteroids.

assumptions can be used as proofs if they're logical enough.

No. That's not how this works. Nothing you've said has come remotely close to logical. It's technophobic fear-mongering with a healthy dose of tin foil.

 

[polysmut]

You mixed wrong things together.
The previous post was about plans to conquer the world.
The next one is the possibility to use automated assassination.
In short :
When i said yes it's real - it's world canquer plan.
But automated cars i said THEY COULD.
That should help solve your misunderstanding of wrong mixes of replies.

Then I think you're unduly worried about the automated cars.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

That depends. If your point was to pitch the next Roland Emmerich disaster movie, you've done a wonderful job.

Thank you

9/11 had 2977 casualties. So your math is way off. Nevermind the fact you're suggesting a simultaneous killing of 1/70th of the world's population.

You're talking about something from more than 10 years ago.
Methods & possiblies changes through time.

What you're talking about is so beyond unlikely that we might as well declare war on lightning. Or asteroids.

If that is how you prefer to put it then that's fine

No. That's not how this works. Nothing you've said has come remotely close to logical. It's technophobic fear-mongering with a healthy dose of tin foil.

If that is how it looks to you then that's fine

Then I think you're unduly worried about the automated cars.

Yes ( with holding my chest high )

Oh god - i wish this conversation to end LOL

 

[TexRex]

Stringent federal regulations? It does stand to reason that property you own and accept the risks of using differs greatly than hiring transport from a large industry.

Good question
Number of riders of the planes ( when we count the planes ) are not as much as number of riders of the cars ( if we counted the number of cars ) which gives less reason to target it when automated cars increases.
It could be more vulnerable & it could not be ( as i stated similarly - it -could- be less vulnerable ) with adding also that it also depends on the type of plane model & age.
So the simple answer is :
Cars are more available than planes & cars has more riders than planes.

If the safety of the cars are powerful enough like for example hilariously :
That cars uses a very strong kind of sponge or balloons to obsurb high speed impacts - it'll give less reason to have automated cars
Or like - bumper airbags ?

If autonomous cars are to be accepted on a large scale, not to mention mandated, doesn't it stand to reason they would be held to similar standards as commercial aircraft regarding resistance to compromise and manipulation by those with malicious intent?

 

[Snorevette]

Any fears about someone hacking into a self-driving car whilst it's driving are completely absurd and anyone who doesn't rely on 90s action flicks for their knowledge on computers probably understands this already. The computer that actually drives the car doesn't need to be connected to anything but the engine, wheels, and necessary sensors; there is no way of accessing it or injecting anything into its programming without being physically plugged into the computer, which I'm sure your fellow commuters would notice considering chances are it's probably not as simple as plugging your ultra advanced hacking device disguised as an iPod into the aux port.

The biggest terrorist act someone could do relating to self-driving cars is switch everyone's radio to The Archers, causing everyone inside to take manual control and drive into a wall to make it stop.

 

[Famine]

Any fears about someone hacking into a self-driving car whilst it's driving are completely absurd and anyone who doesn't rely on 90s action flicks for their knowledge on computers probably understands this already. The computer that actually drives the car doesn't need to be connected to anything but the engine, wheels, and necessary sensors; there is no way of accessing it or injecting anything into its programming without being physically plugged into the computer, which I'm sure your fellow commuters would notice considering chances are it's probably not as simple as plugging your ultra advanced hacking device disguised as an iPod into the aux port.

The biggest terrorist act someone could do relating to self-driving cars is switch everyone's radio to The Archers, causing everyone inside to take manual control and drive into a wall to make it stop.

But it happened this one time because I read about it somewhere but I forgot where and the media is hiding it because Israel.

 

[Danoff]

If autonomous cars are to be accepted on a large scale, not to mention mandated, doesn't it stand to reason they would be held to similar standards as commercial aircraft regarding resistance to compromise and manipulation by those with malicious intent?

All the more reason not to mandate them... too much cost overhead. Anyway it's harder to crash a plane before the pilot intervenes. You'd have to be on autopilot when very close to the ground.

Any fears about someone hacking into a self-driving car whilst it's driving are completely absurd and anyone who doesn't rely on 90s action flicks for their knowledge on computers probably understands this already. The computer that actually drives the car doesn't need to be connected to anything but the engine, wheels, and necessary sensors; there is no way of accessing it or injecting anything into its programming without being physically plugged into the computer, which I'm sure your fellow commuters would notice considering chances are it's probably not as simple as plugging your ultra advanced hacking device disguised as an iPod into the aux port.

The biggest terrorist act someone could do relating to self-driving cars is switch everyone's radio to The Archers, causing everyone inside to take manual control and drive into a wall to make it stop.

One doesn't follow from the other. If a self-driving car is difficult to hack "whilst it's driving", it can still be relatively easy to hack "whilst not driving" and then take action later, while it is. Don't Teslas update themselves over wifi? The CIA currently has programming that can snoop via smart TVs, you don't think they'd be interested in loading programming in a car to snoop on you while it's driving? That programming can be loaded either physically, or remotely, and then could record you, and upload later when it's back on internet. Not to mention that cars can share phone internet these days. This would be a no-brainer for spying on government officials.

I don't think it's that wild to consider the possibility that a virus can be loaded onto hundreds of thousands of self-driving cars, and when enough of them have been loaded, they can be triggered according to the clock to target the nearest oncoming car for a head-on collision. Some of them might be in a garage somewhere, and do nothing. Some of them wouldn't find a target before stopped. Some of them would not be successful in hitting another car and would end up in the median or something. But plenty of them would find another car to ram.

This is not outlandish or science fiction. In fact, I'd be absolutely shocked if it isn't at least, bare minimum, researched by terrorist organizations AND governments for the purpose of assassination. Research at a minimum.

 

[TexRex]

All the more reason not to mandate them... too much cost overhead.

I believe that, at some point, assuming man doesn't blow himself up sooner, the powers that be--and the majority of individuals they govern--will decide that autonomous vehicles are the only logical form of motorized on-road transportation of people and goods. This may be so far off that society has gotten past the desire to harm one another. Clearly we have not reached either of these possible eventualities.

 

[Danoff]

I believe that, at some point, assuming man doesn't blow himself up sooner, the powers that be--and the majority of individuals they govern--will decide that autonomous vehicles are the only logical form of motorized on-road transportation of people and goods. This may be so far off that society has gotten past the desire to harm one another. Clearly we have not reached either of these possible eventualities.

500 years from now, I'd be surprised if this isn't true.

 

[TexRex]

500 years from now, I'd be surprised if this isn't true.

so far off

 

[Snorevette]

One doesn't follow from the other. If a self-driving car is difficult to hack "whilst it's driving", it can still be relatively easy to hack "whilst not driving" and then take action later, while it is. Don't Teslas update themselves over wifi? The CIA currently has programming that can snoop via smart TVs, you don't think they'd be interested in loading programming in a car to snoop on you while it's driving? That programming can be loaded either physically, or remotely, and then could record you, and upload later when it's back on internet. Not to mention that cars can share phone internet these days. This would be a no-brainer for spying on government officials.

I don't think it's that wild to consider the possibility that a virus can be loaded onto hundreds of thousands of self-driving cars, and when enough of them have been loaded, they can be triggered according to the clock to target the nearest oncoming car for a head-on collision. Some of them might be in a garage somewhere, and do nothing. Some of them wouldn't find a target before stopped. Some of them would not be successful in hitting another car and would end up in the median or something. But plenty of them would find another car to ram.

This is not outlandish or science fiction. In fact, I'd be absolutely shocked if it isn't at least, bare minimum, researched by terrorist organizations AND governments for the purpose of assassination. Research at a minimum.

It is absolutely 'that wild'. You would first need to actually develop a virus, which would require a knowledge of the source code for not just a single self-driving car but every single model of self-driving car on the road, and I can guarantee that getting your hands on that source code without actively working as a high-level software engineer at one of the companies would be near enough impossible, and then you would also have to have some way to remotely access hundreds of thousands of self-driving cars at once to inject and activate it. And you would have to do all of this completely undetected by the owners of the cars, the companies that produce the cars, and the intelligence and surveillance agencies of whatever company you're attacking. And all of this is assuming that these cars A. are indeed easily accessible via wireless connection whilst driving and B. don't have advanced antiviral countermeasures not just to prevent hacking but to prevent anyone from making any modifications to the car without going to their nearest licensed dealership and paying $2000 for tech support. I have no idea why on earth you think any terrorist organisation would have the resources to do all of that, and there are much easier and more reliable ways to assassinate or spy on an individual if it's the government you're worried about.

 

[Danoff]

It is absolutely 'that wild'. You would first need to actually develop a virus, which would require a knowledge of the source code for not just a single self-driving car but every single model of self-driving car on the road, and I can guarantee that getting your hands on that source code without actively working as a high-level software engineer at one of the companies would be near enough impossible, and then you would also have to have some way to remotely access hundreds of thousands of self-driving cars at once to inject and activate it. And you would have to do all of this completely undetected by the owners of the cars, the companies that produce the cars, and the intelligence and surveillance agencies of whatever company you're attacking. And all of this is assuming that these cars A. are indeed easily accessible via wireless connection whilst driving and B. don't have advanced antiviral countermeasures not just to prevent hacking but to prevent anyone from making any modifications to the car without going to their nearest licensed dealership and paying $2000 for tech support. I have no idea why on earth you think any terrorist organisation would have the resources to do all of that, and there are much easier and more reliable ways to assassinate or spy on an individual if it's the government you're worried about.

Heh... you pretty much just described why it's impossible to write any computer virus. But in all seriousness, no, you do not need to have access to the source code to write a virus. You don't need it for Windows or Mac, and most of the viruses that work well in linux don't rely understanding the source either. You also don't have to remotely access the cars at once to inject OR activate it. I have no idea why you think that. You would need to do it undetected, but that's kinda the name of the game here when it comes to internet viruses. Antivirus is probably going to be nonexistent for a while, at least until companies think there is a need for it.

One of the reasons it's such a fantastic tool for assassination is because it's harder to detect and trace than other methods. A gun requires physical access to the location, and extraction of the shooter (hopefully). A bomb has much more collateral damage and is easier to trace. A car accident might not have even been an attack, and if you can trash the car sufficiently, there may be no tracing it either.

Edit:

Another thing that the virus angle has going for it is the desire to standardize and regulate self-driving software. If the government requires a portion of code to behave the same way on all cars, you could very well see a mandated portion of source code on all self-driving vehicles.

 

[Tunerguy21]

Taking a break from your regularly scheduled programming of conspiracy and what-not, I'm more surprised that no one has really seemed to discuss things like this:

The drivers are getting more and more distracted

They're blaming the use of smartphones. And that isn't surprising at all, because it seems that almost everyone uses his/hers phone while driving.

And think about all the people who don't care about driving at all. They buy whatever generobox they want because they like the colour and they're all over the place because driving is the least important task they have (way behind texting, make up, eating a burger). They do 40mph in a 60 zone, a 40 zone, a 30 zone and a 20 zone - so you get stuck behind them on the quick road, then they nick off at warp six through town and you catch them back up on the quick road on the other side and get stuck behind them again. Get them into autonomous cars and they're happy... and you're happy.

...which to me seems like the real problem. And its a problem that autonomous cars won't and can't fix. They'll just skirt around it rather than actually nip it in the bud. I remember having a bit of a discussion about this in the Unpopular Opinions thread with @MedigoFlame when he mentioned how he actually looked forward to autonomous cars for these very same reasons. At least in my eyes, if you can't be bothered with putting your full attention on the road when driving, whether you love driving or absolutely despise it, you should not be on the roads period, because you are the problem. If you want to drive, if you need to drive, then your full focus, or at least as much as you can muster at any particular time, should be put on the task at hand, which is driving, and if that is not possible for you or if you can't be bothered, then you don't get to drive, simple as that. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such it can be taken away, no? It seems like more and more we are catering to the needs of the lazy and incompetent, which isn't right whether they happen to be the majority or not.

 

[Danoff]

...which to me seems like the real problem. And its a problem that autonomous cars won't and can't fix. They'll just skirt around it rather than actually nip it in the bud. I remember having a bit of a discussion about this in the Unpopular Opinions thread with @MedigoFlame when he mentioned how he actually looked forward to autonomous cars for these very same reasons. At least in my eyes, if you can't be bothered with putting your full attention on the road when driving, whether you love driving or absolutely despise it, you should not be on the roads period, because you are the problem. If you want to drive, if you need to drive, then your full focus, or at least as much as you can muster at any particular time, should be put on the task at hand, which is driving, and if that is not possible for you or if you can't be bothered, then you don't get to drive, simple as that. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such it can be taken away, no? It seems like more and more we are catering to the needs of the lazy and incompetent, which isn't right whether they happen to be the majority or not.

Self-driving cars will fix that problem though. Because the most distracted people on the road are going to be first in line to have the car drive for them.

Edit:
I just thought of a self-driving car problem though. How does it detect vomit in the back seat from the previous passenger?

 

[Tunerguy21]

Self-driving cars will fix that problem though. Because the most distracted people on the road are going to be first in line to have the car drive for them.

It will stop them from actually being in control of a vehicle while also trying to do other less important things (could that really be considered in control?), but that doesn't solve the problem of mindset, which is what I find the biggest problem with a lot of people today. Driving is not difficult to do, and its not even difficult to do well, and I wager that if the majority of drivers that could be considered a cause for complaint would just focus on the drive, then that would be the solution to the problem right there. We tell people to drive as safely as possible yet all companies love to market how safe their cars are in a crash. We tell people that when you're driving you must stay focused and aware, yet here we are with all kinds of assists and aids that mean you don't have to be as focused or attentive, because if you have a lapse or something happens the car will tell you, or in some cases correct it for you. While the intent of all these new systems is to just help, as time goes on we find we need more and more to do the same job, and we end up fostering this idea that using your phone or doing other, less important things is ok, because there's a car in development that can drive for you so you can focus on what Karen from the office is sending you on FaceBook while trying not to spill your coffee. And it wouldn't be necessary if people would just prioritise.

If what I've said gets hard to follow at points, then apologies for the wording, as I end up frustrated more often than not on subjects such as this, but hopefully it all gets across.

 

[Danoff]

It will stop them from actually being in control of a vehicle while also trying to do other less important things (could that really be considered in control?), but that doesn't solve the problem of mindset, which is what I find the biggest problem with a lot of people today.

It solves the problem from a driving perspective anyway. I guess you're concerned about other activities?

 

[Carbon_6]

I think for most drivers, for various reasons, the act of driving soon gets monotonous. Boring. Mundane. Their stimulus drops to the point that they need something else to keep their attention active. Unfortunately, it ends up being the one thing that diverts their attention away from what should really warrant the vast majority of, if not all, their attention.

It's been illegal to drive with a phone in hand (even using them hands-free) since 2003 in the UK, and yet the amount of drivers I see that still have a phone in hand... heck, not even phones: beverage cups, food, hair brushes etc. is ridiculous. Even an improvisation of the law from March last year of 6 penalty points on your licence and a £200 fine, doesn't seem to be anymore a deterrent than the original law was.

Because the act of driving is seemingly that low down the pecking order in their lives, an autonomous car would be the perfect fit. They can just jump in, do what they believe to be important, and let the car take them wherever they need to be without being a potential risk to anyone else.

 

[Danoff]

It's been illegal to drive with a phone in hand (even using them hands-free) since 2003 in the UK, and yet the amount of drivers I see that still have a phone in hand... heck, not even phones: beverage cups, food, hair brushes etc. is ridiculous. Even an improvisation of the law from March last year of 6 penalty points on your licence and a £200 fine, doesn't seem to be anymore a deterrent than the original law was.

A beverage cup in hand is not the same as a phone in hand. You're not tempted to look at the beverage. Also, the presence of the law does not mean that it's actually dangerous to drive with something in your hand. If it should be illegal to remove a hand from the wheel, let's ban manual transmissions while we're at it.

I can eat and drive a lot more safely than I can listen to a screaming 2 year old and drive.

 

[TheCracker]

It is absolutely 'that wild'. You would first need to actually develop a virus, which would require a knowledge of the source code for not just a single self-driving car but every single model of self-driving car on the road, and I can guarantee that getting your hands on that source code without actively working as a high-level software engineer at one of the companies would be near enough impossible, and then you would also have to have some way to remotely access hundreds of thousands of self-driving cars at once to inject and activate it. And you would have to do all of this completely undetected by the owners of the cars, the companies that produce the cars, and the intelligence and surveillance agencies of whatever company you're attacking. And all of this is assuming that these cars A. are indeed easily accessible via wireless connection whilst driving and B. don't have advanced antiviral countermeasures not just to prevent hacking but to prevent anyone from making any modifications to the car without going to their nearest licensed dealership and paying $2000 for tech support. I have no idea why on earth you think any terrorist organisation would have the resources to do all of that, and there are much easier and more reliable ways to assassinate or spy on an individual if it's the government you're worried about.

Surely in this day and age of online enabled cars with drive by wire etc, it's already technically possible to remotely disrupt the interaction between the driver and a vehicle?

 

[homeforsummer]

At least in my eyes, if you can't be bothered with putting your full attention on the road when driving, whether you love driving or absolutely despise it, you should not be on the roads period, because you are the problem. If you want to drive, if you need to drive, then your full focus, or at least as much as you can muster at any particular time, should be put on the task at hand, which is driving, and if that is not possible for you or if you can't be bothered, then you don't get to drive, simple as that. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and as such it can be taken away, no? It seems like more and more we are catering to the needs of the lazy and incompetent, which isn't right whether they happen to be the majority or not.

While I agree with the sentiment, how else do you propose they get about? I'd love to see the roads cleared of all the incompetent or inattentive people, but at the moment the alternatives aren't in place to allow all these people to get where they need to go.

The problem with autonomous cars isn't that it's giving these people an option to text or be oblivious in peace - taking away responsibility from people who don't exercise it has to be a benefit.

The problem is that autonomous cars are a veil over the real issue, which is that those alternatives - better public transportation, and even the whole concept of the "commute" being a thing of the past - aren't yet viable.

One of the best ways of making the roads safer - in theory - would be to have less traffic on them. A really good bus system, or a subway, or elevated railway, or fostering a culture in which people either live within walking distance of their workplace or can regularly work remotely would all be more beneficial than autonomous cars. And none of those would require as many or more than the current number of cars already clogging the roads.

 

[KungFury]

Please excuse me while I take things out of context and ponder some of my own opinions on the matter.

allow all these people to get where they need to go.

Vs. restricting the right to travel freely.

taking away responsibility

from people who don't exercise it has to be a benefit.

Meaning they don't responsible well enough in the eyes of others.

"commute" being a thing of the past

Man I pray for the day of this, I often think about the percentage of peoples wages being spent on car payments, insurance, tax, etc, all for the right to work.

One of the best ways of making the roads safer - in theory - would be to have less traffic on them. A really good bus system, or a subway, or elevated railway, or fostering a culture in which people either live within walking distance of their workplace or can regularly work remotely would all be more beneficial than autonomous cars. And none of those would require as many or more than the current number of cars already clogging the roads.

I'm all for this, but it needs to be voluntary.

There is an inherent problem when free travel should be a right, is also required for sustenance, yet it is considered a privilege. I don't think robot cars are going to solve that problem.

None of this post is in direct response to HFS, just thoughts.

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

But it happened this one time because I read about it somewhere but I forgot where and the media is hiding it because Israel.

I see that you're obviously turning it into personal by making fun of me and i can't stay quite about it.
This reference is obviously directed to me.
Please don't escalate it farther because i'm starting to dislike staying any longer here in the forums.

 

[GTsanz]

The future is fully electric and fully autonomous. People may want to drive but because we are so poor at it in comparison to the soon to arrive autonomous cars govts will legislate against human driven cars. Perhaps there will be a car in the garage to take to the track and enjoy though.

Government mandated race track every 50km, and I'm Ok about this limp-wristed ev autonomous ball-less future.

 

[KungFury]

Government mandated race track every 50km, and I'm Ok about this limp-wristed ev autonomous ball-less future.

epic opinion.

I could not agree with you any less if I tried but that response is gold. 👍

 

[ZEROTHEKNIGHT]

Government mandated race track every 50km, and I'm Ok about this limp-wristed ev autonomous ball-less future.

LOL !!!!!

 

[homeforsummer]

None of this post is in direct response to HFS, just thoughts.

No worries - though I'd like you to clarify a few things.

Vs. restricting the right to travel freely.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this.

To clarify my own position, people obviously need some way of getting to work. Currently, cars are the most effective way for many people to do so - even if they have no interest in driving, or worse, lack the ability to do so safely or responsibly.

My preference would be for them to not do so, but that requires some other way of getting those people to work. Autonomous cars are one option, and while it would solve the problem of bad drivers, it wouldn't solve the more fundamental problem of too many vehicles being on the road in the first place.

Meaning they don't responsible well enough in the eyes of others.

Also unclear on this, but broadly, yes. While my opinion should have no bearing on the way others live their lives, there are clearly a lot of people out there who don't drive responsibly, and that's something that affects the safety of others.

I'm all for this, but it needs to be voluntary.

Voluntary in the sense that people must choose to use these systems over the current option of driving, or in another way that I might be missing?

If the former, I agree, though that also raises the issue that humans are naturally selfish and if the option is between taking a tube or driving in your own personal vehicle (even if driving badly and contributing to traffic), I suspect many wouldn't give up their cars unless cost and time were stacked heavily in favour of the alternative. Convincing someone that doing something differently is better for society is much more difficult than convincing them that it's better for their wallet.

I spent several years writing for a green vehicle website. I understand that side of things and am naturally inclined towards ecological causes - I don't like waste or excessive consumption, I recycle, I tend to drive with economy in mind if I'm not expressly driving for pleasure. But it's difficult even for me to choose an alternative to cars for most situations, since the alternatives just aren't good enough where I live.

The only scenario I'll pick public transport over my own car is when I travel to London; in a car it's a 1.5+ hour journey (with the potential for more with traffic) and I'd have to pay for both congestion charging (£12 per day) and an extortionate parking fee when I got there. The train is relatively expensive (£45 usually for a return ticket, more at peak times) but it's a 50-minute journey that drops me into the centre of the city where I can choose to go everywhere on foot (free) or via the tube (not free, but not expensive).

Incidentally, I'd still take the train into London if the alternative to driving was autonomous driving, purely for the time savings and not wasting my life away in stop-start traffic.