You really shouldn't complain about someone not having any facts and then fail to provide them yourself. Watch, I'll do the same thing:

>No, at least not if the author's vision of 200mph average speeds is to be taken. When a mistake or malfunction happens at that speed, safety mechanisms will be imperative. Furthermore, having a mechanical car does not prevent: someone else running into you, a deer running in front of the car, etc.

One would presume eventually there would be heavily monitored dedicated freeways for automated vehicles to travel. You could build a single lane tunnel between major cities even, since a single lane is all you need since accidents will become exceedingly rare.

Once you have a dedicated, single lane enclosed highway, a monitoring system can be aware of deer and outside complications and you can surely get up to high speeds.

>But they wouldn't, because the purchase would still be in the name of the parent. Furthermore, do you see parents sticking their 6 year olds on the subway just because they can? No. A very few do it and get ostracized by society.

You do realize how many school children take a school bus every day?

>Oh really? So we won't need limits for the existing drivers who aren't using driverless vehicles? How will the 200mph traveling car navigate around all the 60mph traveling ones? Furthermore, is every car going to be programmed to go slow in pedestrian zones? How do you enforce that without speed limits? The current Google Car wasn't jetting 200mph down the 101, it was driving under the speed limit in residential neighborhoods.

The OP is basically looking on a 25-50 year timeline not a 10 one. Think dedicated automated smart roadways and situations where "manual" driving is as rare as a VHS VCR today.

>No. Fuel costs and traffic don't just magically disappear because of your fantasy land.

You're assuming today's fuel costs. Future cars will be much more efficient, and will be electric so the delivery mechanism will be more efficient as well. Also note automated drivers will be able to use the transmission much more effectively, since they'll be able to be aware of the layout of the roadway and adjust gears accordingly.

> I will. Just because you can live outside the city and travel to it at a faster rate does not make it a given that one would choose to.

He never said nobody will want to live in the city. He said that "commuting" as we know it will be a thing of the past, as you won't be actually losing any time to transportation. So, many people that currently would dread living so far away (but would love to for better scenery, access to schools, etc.) due to the horrific commute may reconsider it once they can actually be productive during the trip. (Not to mention the trip will be a lot faster than it is today for the reasons above.)

Edit: Oh, and to his point about flying. If you do the math, I think you'll find at 200mph door-to-door time between many cities is close to what you'd expect for a flight if you take into account time traveling to and from the airport and time in the airport. This, combined with the fact that traveling by automated luxury car will certainly be more enjoyable than traveling by coach, even if the trip is slightly longer, will make an interesting tradeoff between air and road appear.