"when self driving cars take off, the government will ban driving"

The bulk of people never enjoyed driving and adopted distractions like radios and so on as soon as they could.

The only difference is that distractions are becoming ever more distracting, and that people have to drive further than ever because American city planning is constantly trumping itself at being complete fucking horse shit.

Manual transmission can't reasonably be spun into a public safety issue. Self-driving cars can.

Although, it makes one wonder if local ordinances wouldn't fight it.

Can you give me a ticket when the car is the driver? Is it a DUI when I am not driving and the car is? These cars won't activate unless a seatbelt is on, so no ticket there either.

It will absolutely decimate small town speed traps. I am for that.

The guys with the 4x4's and mudding tires are right to be super careful - those tires are also pretty shit in show and ice.

Frankly I don't understand how people can still do 80+ in those kinds of conditions - the car itself literally starts to feel like it's become partially unhinged from the road. Most people I've met become terrified if their car wiggles in the rain when the tires break loose just a little bit, how are they somehow be fine while they're essentially skating down the freeway at the speed of light?

Like I said earlier, the bulk of people drive shitty uncomfortable cars that get them from point A to point B and are good on gas. Hell, even sports cars aren't exactly comfy rides.

The bulk of the people who ride for the joy of riding in the past did so in road coaches.

>Coaches

Should have said couches. I.E. Town cars and big ass Caddys and shit like that.

the reason why "they'll ban manual driving" is kind of silly is because of two things;

-classic cars still exist around the world
-motorcycles still exist around the world

both of those things are very unsafe or bad for the environment or both BUT they're relatively niche.

once there's some actual pressure to legislate away either of the above two things, then i'll worry about manual driving going away. Not a moment before.
and i'm talking like, an actual bill which goes somewhere, not one senator from cuckland making a blog post

You can thank German cars and 'muh handling' meme. I love when American cars were boats with comfy suspension.

Public opinion will change once it becomes more stable, more advertised and so on - like I said, baby steps

Oh, so somehow it's the Germans' fault that Detroit was too lazy and incompetent to adapt to new conditions of more expensive petrol and having to shift focus onto a global market to remain competitive. I mean, you can just build a wall around the US and invent an endless source of oil and keep driving horrid barges forever, but that's not how the world works in reality. Cry me a river.

>Motorcycles are bad for the environment

Been throughly debunked. Even with their piss poor emission standards, motorcycles on the whole are still greener than the bulk of cars on the road and they leave a smaller carbon footprint than the must subcompact fucker you can find.

i was more aiming at classic cars being all bad and motorcycles being wildly unsafe but ok

Yeah but motorcycles are almost entirely recreational and for every other recreational vehicle (not talking about campers here) there are ten motorcycles, at least in Europe. Also two-stroke scooters actually do produce absolutely horrid emissions and can still be bought brand new.

>Barges are shit for fuel consumption

They aren't great, they aren't bad. For example, the industry average for light vehicles is 25.5 MPG in the USA. I get about 23 MPG in a big ass Lincoln Town car. If I was jack rabbiting the bastard in a city, I would probably get around 18 MPG.

Lower than average, but not as bad as people made it out to be. To be fair, that is throwing SUVs and Trucks that get shit mileage into the same bin as cars that get great mileage to get the average.

Okay, point taken.

I have had to stick up for the whole 'bikes are shit for the environment' side of the argument too many times in the past because people see a loud ass HD and think 'that thing is terrible for the environment' for some fucked reason.

Frankly, my Dad's brand new gas Ram gets less MPG than Chryslers biggest ever engine, the 440 wedge.

Aerodynamics are a big part.

23 mpg is appalling average, let alone on the highway. What decade are we talking about here, the '80s?

>The guys with the 4x4's

I nearly got rear ended by a brand new audi SUV a few weeks back. Stopped at an intersection and watched in the rear view mirror as he came in with the speed of light. Fucker didn't realize his quattro and abs gizmos won't save him when there's wet snow on the road.
He swerwed in the right lane and nearly t-boned another car, trying to come to a stop. Jeez.

Sour grapes: the post

There's this older guy that lives in my building, he's a mechanic for the local public transport so he takes the bus for free everywhere, which makes sense but one time I asked him if he even has a car. And he said, "yes, I do. I drive on the weekends. Driving to work everyday isn't pleasurable or necessary." Then he showed me his car and I almost shit.

Well, keep in mind 23 MPG American is closer to 35 MPG European.

What if they make self driving motorcycles?

>fully autonomous cars in the US
>ever happening
haha i'll fucking die of old age before that happens
the infrastructure you cunts have over there is fucking beyond garbage
your own civil engineer society rated the entire country's infrastructure as D-
self driving cars will never be let loose on those kind of roads

They're already driving in the US, europeen.

Also the population density is way lower here.

While this movie is far far into the future with all of its advances and what not. I feel as if this scene will give a brief gist of what will happen when self driving cars need to react to a unique situation as well as how concerned everyone was when he drove in "manual" mode and how reckless they thought it was.

yes its a movie. yes there are robots. yes the cars haven't been invented yet, bla bla you get the point

youtube.com/watch?v=Qb0Kzb3haK8

Me neither... even with the worlds best studded tires on a modern car I feel that 60mph is the fastest I'll ever feel safe going on the winter roads here. Any more than that and the braking distance become so that I would most likely not be able to avoid/brake before a moose

They won't, but Insurance companies will make the cost of entry and access prohibitively high that the nu-world "public" transportation that is ride-sharing will be the primary form of transportation for much of the populace.

I don't worry about over-regulation of humanity, I worry about under-regulation of the market.

>bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/techflash/2016/05/drivers-dont-want-self-driving-cars-uber-google.html

I've talked to coworkers about this. Its mostly because they have a BS fear.

The main excuse is, I dont want computers driving, what if they crash or mess up.

Which is a fucking retarded argument consider humans are fucking stupid and make many more mistakes then a computer does, and have heart attacks ect on the road.

it feels to me there is a battle against classics personally, some states dont allow you to daily drove your classics unless you have a DD plate, NH requires you to attend 2 car shows a year if you drive on antique plates and insurance companies artificially price gouging people for older cars even if its a rust bucket just because its an antique (its not uncommon to see a 1950s ford with normal plates and covered completely in rust with a back firing engine in my area, that person still ends up paying more.than a 18 year old with a new sports car)

the thing about self driving cars being a threat to normal drivers is that a self driving car is an added layer of control that can be imposed on you under the guise of safety.

most cars already have GPS and some even have wifi-

but what about when all cars have autopilot? When all cars have the ability to go anywhere with GPS?

What happens when the government can just take over your car and have it take you somewhere? Or the day you get in your car, tell it where you want to go, and it says "no"? and imprisons you until the authorities arrive?

You mention classic cars:
France not too long ago, instated a ban on classic cars built before 1999. The reason? air pollution.

And considering how crazy politics have gotten lately, is it that far fetched, if a far left wacko gets into power, for him to start banning cars left and right for the same reasons, "pollution", "pedestrian safety", and such? I mean cars are already so bloated and garbage BECAUSE of pedestrian safety, is it hard to imagine, the day fully autonomous cars exist, human driving being banned for the same reason?

I.e Your scared because your a criminal

>The main excuse is, I dont want computers driving, what if they crash or mess up.

Stupid anecdote here:
My buddy's co-worker has managed to total 2 cars in the past 3 years. This past week, he was speeding down a side road and slammed into a *stationary* car with 3 high school students in it.
One of the girls is now having random blackouts, and all sustained injuries.

People like this are driving on the roads every day. The sooner there's an automatic ride sharing service to keep plebs like this from shitting up the roads, the better.

>imprisons you
If you're going to run from the cops, break a window or something.

>if you have nothing to hide you're fine!!
kys faggot

not an argument.

it's not about being a criminal. it's about not wanting to be under big brother any more than you have to. And giving up your freedom to drive anywhere wherever you want without constantly being "connected" is something I can't accept

i do like the idea of not being forced into being connected all the time. im planning my first, and probably only, cross-country road trip soon. gonna take a trip down route 66 with only my radio working, cellphone off. im excited.

I think driverless car ride sharing will be a shitshow based on how people treat public transport. I can only imagine the amount of urine, feces, vomit, and semen that will coat the seats of your average Uber when there's no one to kick you out.

>
Be advised, if you use those back highways instead of the interstate, be prepared to experience equal parts of 'man, nature is pretty' and 'Holy shit, my country really is dying.' on your trip. Anyone who thinks the USA is doing great needs to just take some highway trips and see all the dead infrastructure, shuttered towns, and warehouses and shit falling into ruin all over the place.

More wealth redistribution and central planning?

In the US, everyone is constantly trading their 600cc up for the new one, so we ride the latest and greatest in euro-4'd bullshit....minus the noise restrictions as soon as we have the money for a different muffler.

So, for us, motorcycles are normally the greener option. It's not exactly the rest of the world where 50cc two strokes are necessary because you can't afford a car.

Shhh... We have a war in Asia to win, Commie.

the law is not right.

say it with me.

the law is not right.

there is no economical means of distinguishing between "duh plebs" and "me, the good driver who knows what an apex is!"

if they suffer you suffer. in the future, only motorcycles will still be human operated because there is no benefit to a self driving motorcycle, if they're not banned by then.

People treat it like shit because it's there to serve them, the lowest common denominator of people, with fitting LCD service.

Levels of service will still exist. I put "public" in quotes because I meant it as "How the general public will be transported" not so much as "Public Transportation made possible by Government"

I trust that explaining how there will be a lot more poor people in the future isn't required.

>Levels of service will still exist.
I honestly expect airline levels of service in that you either fly first or scum class.

>Be advised, if you use those back highways instead of the interstate,

Self-driving cars under gov't control: You will use the interstate, no matter how backed up it is. Ulesss you pay us $10 per trip to use the express lane.

Driving yourself: I know the back roads. I can get around the freeway traffic jams and get from A to B faster. Shame that the rich folks don't like me driving through their waterfront neighborhoods.

Actually that's completely incorrect. First of all only the Brits use mpg, and their measurement is only around 10% off. I know exactly how American mpg convert to l/100km. I seriously hope you don't live in the delusion that 20 mpg American are actually a good fuel economy and that all cars in the world get these kinds of numbers. American fuel economy has always been and will always remain garbage.

US gallon vs Brit gallon
they can have their bullshit, L/100 km masterrace

We'd be better off for it.

> keep in mind 23 MPG American is closer to 35 MPG European
>their measurement is only around 10% off
You're both wrong.

The modern British gallon is almost exactly 20% more than our American liquid gallon (or, put another way, ours is 16.6% less than the imperial standard).

1 imperial gallon = 4.54609 L ≈ 277.4194 cu. in.
1 wine gallon (U.S. liquid gallon) = 231 cu. in. ≈ 3.785411784 L

That's a ratio of approximately 1.20095:1.

By the way, this is because the imperial pint (derived from the old ale pint) contains 20 oz., as opposed to the wine pint's 16. However, since the imperial fluid ounce is slightly smaller than the Queen Anne one (which we still use), the imperial pint is only 20% more than ours, rather than the expected 25%).

So 23 MPG (U.S.), all else being equal (same exact fuel, etc.), should equate to about 27.6 MPG (U.K.).