It's because the commenter's solution to the problems of waste, noise, pollution, obesity, and people dying and getting maimed through traffic violence, is, ess

It's because the commenter's solution to the problems of waste, noise, pollution, obesity, and people dying and getting maimed through traffic violence, is, essentially, the removal of a technological layer. Driverless cars, in opposition, is the addition of a technological layer. We are all modernists now. Essentially, this means that we perceive technology in itself as a value. The primary value is not the end goal, say, for example, a healthy urban environment. No, instead, living in a sci-fi future with robotic vehicles is a value, because it is technologically more advanced than a future without that. In modernism, it's a sickness of the mind really, a solution cannot be imagined, unless it involves technological mediation. This has been the curse of human civilization for a good 100 years now. Anyways, I don't think research in driverless cars is wasted. They are better than the current state of affairs. They can only be a marginal improvement though, they are not a paradigm shift.