RESOLVED: driverless cars will be the norm within the next 20 years

Thanks, Ragnar. Please note that I requested arguments in the second round, rebuttals in the second round. By Con's own admission, his argument against the rapid adoption of driverless cars are "limited," so I can understand the temptation to move straight through to counter-arguments. Nevertheless, I hope voters will note the violation of the conditions of this debate. Con's principal argument seems to be that driverless cars will not be universal within 20 years, a much higher benchmark than the argument of this debate. Con's benchmark sets up a "straw man," arguing against universal adoption to defend against the normalization of driverless cars. By way of example, I don't think anybody would argue that the adoption of smartphones has been universal since the introduction of the iPhone in 2007, I know plenty of people who decline to buy a smartphone. But I also don't think that anybody would argue that the use of smartphones has become commonplace in American society over the last 6 years. This is the sort of benchmark my argument pursues, and I would argue that there are few technologies that achieve universal adoption. Con argues that there have been many safety innovations that have not become standard and uses the surprising example of power steering. Chrysler introduced the first commercially available power steering system in 1951.[1] 5 years later, 1 out every 4 American cars were sold with power steering. [2] 5 years after that, power steering was standard or optional on every American car manufactured. [3] Sure, there were plenty of holdouts during the first 20 years of power steering, but I am not arguing that adoption will be universal, only that it will be rapid. If every American has a driverless option in the next ten years in the way power steering was adopted, I would certainly see that as the normalization of driverless cars and my expectations exceeded. I'll assume Con was simply making a fatuous remark in his comments about male drivers and skip the argument. Regarding the additional cost argument, I have pointed out that maintaining a driverless commercial vehicle is already less expensive than a manned vehicle. When it comes to personal transportation, my argument is that individual car ownership will drop dramatically as a) non-driving makes car ownership a less common venue for personal expression and b) the ease and price of car sharing and automated taxi services compares increasingly favorably to the cost of ownership. The current average daily cost of car ownership+maintenance is just short of $25. The daily cost of a driverless car sharing program is estimated at $5-10 for city dwellers. Indeed, one team of urban planners led by the former head of R&D at GM analyzed the potential for car sharing programs in Ann Arbor, MI and concluded that car sharers could reduce transportation costs by 90%. [4]The average daily cost for maintaining a car in the US Will it take a few years to implement car sharing programs on city-wide scales? Sure it will. Will there be a powerful demand for these kinds of savings to propel cities to implement programs like this? You bet there will. Think of the third of Americans who are disabled, elderly, or too young to drive. The demand from non-drivers alone would likely propel rapid adoption. Con's arguments about the current rate of car renewal become irrelevant when the question is less when to buy a new autonomous car than it is when to stop paying extra for the stress and increased danger of driving a personal car and start using cheaper, safer, easier car services. Yes, there will be holdouts. But as human driven cars decline, the holdouts will look increasingly out-of-date, if only because they'll be the only cars on the road having accidents. Think of the social pressure applied when humans are the only ones causing car accidents. How much less forgiving will the public be of the death and destruction by human caused accidents, when a nearly accident-free solution is commonly available? In response to Con's rebuttals, I agree that all current on-the-road testing of driverless cars in the US requires a person behind the steering wheel to intervene. Google reports 435,000 miles of testing under autonomous control without incident [5] Human driven cars have hit driverless cars, but the driverless systems themselves have not caused any accidents. Con's 300,000 mileage figure only sources Google's test program and does not consider other autonomous vehicle testing by 10 car manufacturers and several universities, not to mention US military vehicle testing over the past 20 years, not to mention European or Chinese initiatives. I agree that insurance companies are greedy, but how will they justify current rates when accident rates start dropping dramatically? Maintaining high rates will drive more of the insured to cheap car services and increase the rate of decline. Google predicts that widespread implementation of driverless cars will reduce accident rates by 90%, saving 30,000 lives and 2 million injuries in America alone. There is no doubt that the driverless car means massive reduction in revenue for Insurers, but isn't this another argument for rapid implementation? I agree that trucks and other vehicles have breakdowns. Consider how the overwhelming number of breakdowns are due to human error: driving beyond maintenance due, driving when a check engine light is on, running out of gas, overusing brakes, overshifting, etc. A driverless system could prevent a large number of breakdowns and be programmed to not drive beyond system tolerances. If car service programs become popular and a car breaks down- no problem, another car will pick up passengers. Additionally, driverless cars would respond to breakdowns with greater safety and any stranded passengers on roadways would be safer from driverless cars. Driverless systems are a much better solution to engine failures than human systems. Modern GPS systems have their flaws and the law of averages demands that there will always be some possibility of failure in driverless systems. However, the rate of failure has already proved superior to that of human drivers and is expected to prove exponentially so [6]. Regarding traffic jams. While car sharing programs reduce the overall number of cars (by 90% if you believe Google), cars can move at higher speeds with less distance since human reaction time is no longer a factor. Most of rush hour congestion is caused by the human reaction of slowing down in response to the number of cars in proximity, not by maxing out road capacity. Con imagines a passenger in a driverless annoyed by other cars cutting in front. I would argue that a passenger would be much more likely to be playing playstation or doing paperwork or talking to friends and would quickly adapt to taking little notice of the minutiae of driving. These little events are only interesting to drivers required to fixate on the road. Yes, American today love their sports cars and the general expression of their personality via cars, but I think this quality will rapidly fade. Will a sports car really seem that cool when it is the only car with dents and dings or when it becomes of symbol of inefficiency and human error? I doubt it. Human driven cars will increasingly be viewed like Hummers are today, inefficient tanks or like dangerous old Ford Explorers. In 20 years, I expect human driven cars will still be around, legal and tolerated, but there will be a lot of social pressure to get with the times. Google predicts that driverless cars will be available by 2017, and most car manufacturers seems to be looking at around 2020. More conservatively, the Society of Automotive Engineers predicts autonomous cars on the road by 2025 [7]. Whether driverless cars become an option in 4 years or 7 or 12, I expect the astonishing advantages in price, convenience, and safety to drive a powerful demand. By any estimate, the driverless car will be a commonplace artifact of American society by 2033. Vote Pro if agree. Sources: [1] http://books.google.com... [2] http://books.google.com... [3]http://www.brakeandfrontend.com... [4] http://www.forbes.com... http://www.economist.com... [5]http://www.economist.com... [6http://mashable.com... [7]http://www.economist.com...