>Have self driving cars not require a driving license (and you can't manually drive them)
>Driver's license now require an actual extensive test and rigorous exam
>Abolish car safety regulations so car makers can make good cars and only those with a coveted driver's license can drive them
>Normies hate driving so they'll all buy autopilot Teslas and never bother getting a license
There you go I solved everything.
nah
I say simply banning manually operated cars from the road is the better option
please kill your self
those are the worst ideas ever conceived
>women forced out of the seat
>noone ever merges in front of you while you're in their blind spot again except an Veeky Forumstard in a 240SX that now costs $5k in rust trap condition because of market forced OP failed to recognize
Protip
It won't be like simply ordering it with a manuel trans anymore
>nigger without license commits a crime
>car "you're a suspect in a crime", locks doors and drives nigger to jail
>rebellious teens set up reflective panels at busy intersection
>high adoption rate of self-driving cars means lots of accidents due to read errors
>auto cars can work with other cars to make traffic efficient
>widespread adoption and few licenses cause auto cars to avoid licensed driver cars, resulting in effective containment zones
>containment zones are practically auto car free and can mean old fashioned type people can gather and cause normies to stay away
You're speaking my language, op.
That doesn't stop shitty drivers from driving.
>see someone driving their car
>pull over and crush the car after making them pay all towing fees
ok.jpg
What?
I feel people are misreading the OP, only the subhuman commuters who only see cars as an appliance would get auto-pilot EV cars. This way the market will be split entirely in two, with one catering to people who retake their now significantly more rigorous exam (ideally at least requiring you know basic maintenance and how do drive a manual), and the other market will be just be self-driving cars. Insurance will get cheaper since less retards will be driving, and car makers won't be held down by CAFE and other standards. Not only that but if you're ever feeling lazy, you can just have two cars, one auto-cuck car and an actual weekend touge monster
Until you realise that all these cars will be in a system to themselves. They will work together and a non self driving car will be the odd man out. It won't work unless all cars are self driving.
It would work because only skilled drivers would manually drive.
>Have self driving cars not require a driving license (and you can't manually drive them)
There should be a lesser license for self-driving cars, but the idea that there's no need for manual operation is retarded bullshit.
>Driver's license now require an actual extensive test and rigorous exam
Agreed.
>Abolish car safety regulations so car makers can make good cars and only those with a coveted driver's license can drive them
Even if they were abolished, Automakers would still put their efforts towards safety R&D because that's what the majority of people buying cars these days want.
>Safety is what the people want
Those people would buy self driving cars. The regulations abolishment was more for fun manual driven cars.
>crushing potentially amazing vehicles because their driver was a retarded asshat
why tho
>implying that isn't the current situation
it's not like there won't be an inbetween phase where there some self driving and some manually operated cars
they will have to deal with that problem then, and should be working on it now.
Would help if cars had the RX500's light system for the automatics to read but as data transmitted to the cars around them wirelessly. but that opens up a whole slew of problems in itself.
The lessons required to be certified, combined with them being tougher and fewer people seeking them, would make them be more expensive to be economically worth it, along with being rarer and further from many. Combine that with testing, even bigger problem. Combine that for insuring a "flawed" human driver, bigger problem. Combine that with autonomous cars needing to accommodate the behavior of "flawed" human drivers, bigger problem.
It's also assumed that any evidence of you being "properly certified" would be proof you never made a mistake ever. Except for the rare case that you hit a non-automated car, the system would be assumed to be perfect and you flawed.
You guys are all describing systems dangerously similar to how EU laws changed motorbike licenses
The result now is that the 600 class is dead, only a few of enthusiast ever bother to get unrestricted licenses and those who do are seen as suicidal madmen
The market has moved towards churning out 125s and boring commuters even birthing automatic abominations
I don't know in what Europe you live in
>tfw we're gonna live to see the day when our voice operated Tesla will drive to our garage at the outskirts of the city to pick up the trailer with our classical sports car (a 2022 Porsche Cayman GTF [F is for fuel cell]) and drive us to the nearby manual driving enclosure where we can drive cars with pedals and steering wheels.
>motorbike
>suicidal madmen
They pretty much are, considering the number of people who pay more attention to their phone than traffic because their SUV-tank has so many safety features, nothing serious can happen anyway.
ITA
>CBR, r6 and ninjette are getting the axe
>gixxer is 750
>ducati's using literally 3 engines
>Aprilia only does 750s, 1100s and scooters
>triumph upped the 675s
I can go on if you want...
Oh no, bikes have slightly more displacement that you want! Sorry you live in such a dystopia, dude. I hope you can immigrate to Turkey or something.
>slightly more
Just enough to be outside a2, for instance...
Enough to make a whole engine and weight classe obsolete
I bet you're American.
>It won't work unless all cars are self driving.
And bicycles. And pedestrians.
Which makes manual driving licenses and insurance more expensive. Which keeps the poor folks off the roads and in mass transit* where they belong. And the wealthy continue to drive. Suits me just fine.
*Because the self driving car is just a step along the way to socialist utopia. It's more economical to load all the plebs on a few large vehicles. We can call them buses.
Same reason they scrap valuable collectables during gun buybacks.
Muh Feels.
>MFW the rules for the last buyback in my area were so lax that I bought 8000 dollars in shitty deactivated stuff from an army surplus store, threw it all in my car and got 37,000 dollars back when they were forced to accept it.
What about the poor ass niggers and spics who still have their old Chevy and Toyota rustboxes but don't have money to buy a new self driving car?
Unless your definition of wealthy is initially $200,000/yr income and shortly thereafter $1M+, I think that you are probably underestimating the impact. Once automated cars start getting major traction and have massive penetration it's not going to be a matter of $30/mo insurance or $300/mo insurance or $3,000/mo insurance, it'll be $30,000/mo insurance or more. There won't be a pool of largely safe drivers as once cars drive themselves because the manufacturer will have the liability. Manual drivers will do so for the thrill of driving, meaning you're taking the riskiest pool out there (by virtue of the type of driver and the fact they're driving manually at all).