3 ms·
1) You would still need some form of insurance. It's still possible for a human operator/owner to negligently cause accidents. (e.g. poor maintenance, chair st
by pcurve 14y ago
1) You would still need some form of insurance. It's still possible for a human operator/owner to negligently cause accidents. (e.g. poor maintenance, chair strapped to the roof falling off at 65mph).
However, if premiums become low enough, car insurance policy might even be offered as an add-on to homeowner's or renter's insurance.
4) I think cars will evolve (or devolve) to require less maintenance, and more self-diagnosing.
5) If there are a lot of autonomous cars, owners can simply walk away from their cars, and the cars will coordinate amongst themselves to part in designated spots.
6) You know what bogs down city courts? People fighting traffic and parking tickets.
- salman89 14y ago4) This has nothing to do with Google and more to do with auto manufacturers. I don't think the problem is that people can't drive their cars to the auto shop. 5) Agreed. Also better traffic flow if you can get the cars to work together. 6) You're probably right about city courts. I'd also love to see cops focusing on actual police work rather than waiting for people to run a stop sign. But we have traffic courts that handle these sort of things - we have assigned separate agencies to take care of it. It's hard to argue though that we have somehow failed to prosecute actual crime due to traffic and parking tickets - there are probably problems more severe that have caused that.