> All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving. I see now, t

> All of these interfaces would require driver attention (minimal on the highway), but would significantly reduce fatigue associated with driving. I see now, that makes sense. Thanks! I did a little more hunting on Mindell and it seems his words are easily misinterpreted [1] [2] It sounds like he is almost anti-Google in that article, though I imagine he's really trying to argue for something like you describe. I think Google's on the right track towards such a system. Right now they're constraining themselves to having sensors inside the vehicle to see how far they can safely travel. If that does not work out, presumably they can invest in developing a living road like you describe to aid in tracking cars' movements. If Google does start some sort of taxi network, presumably passengers will be able to enter destinations, or perhaps request to change lanes. Under Mindell's definition, perhaps that is not completely autonomous. I think it is full autonomy in the way Google thinks of it. Or maybe Mindell would call that autonomy and just admit he was wrong and that cars are the first human transporters that can be fully autonomous. Thanks for your thoughts. I like your ideas about adding noise. You've obviously put some thought into this. I haven't seen others mention that elsewhere. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision_of_selfdriving_cars_is_wrong_says/ https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/3whcj0/googles_vision... [2] http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars-is-wayward-says-mit-prof/ http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-vision-of-self-driving-cars...