> Really?! You don't see the advantages of a self-driving car? I see advantages. My point is that they aren't enough to make the technology groundbreaking. The

> Really?! You don't see the advantages of a self-driving car? I see advantages. My point is that they aren't enough to make the technology groundbreaking. The only thing left is the cool factor. It would be cool to not have to worry about driving as much (it can be an annoyance), but only those who have to deal with major amounts of traffic or long commutes would really notice (and what they really want is something to shorten the commute, not make it more bearable). Even a long bus/train ride, though you're not driving, is still annoying, as it's potentially cutting hours out of the day. > A self-driving car that handles traffic situations at least as well as a human is the holy grail of personal transport. You couldn't have picked a worse example. No need for cars is the holy grail of personal transport. If you want to do something major in this regard, then invent teleportation or something. But wait-- that idea is too far out, eh, not practical enough? > No, that is completely wrong. If it weren't, driverless cars would already fill the streets. The technology has been in existence for at least 5-10 years. Many fine details (recognizing addresses, versus driving to a set location) maybe haven't been worked out, but the core of it has long been done.