Yes, they are all centered around micro-sized anecdotal fear mongering and a clinging to a world that doesn't exist anymore. At least, that's my take.

Don't agree with Andrew? You're a flat-earther. Got it?

My company actually works pretty closely with Google X (or, formerly Google X, the Alphabet name change has caused naming confusion) who runs the Driverless Car team. We do a lot of hiring for their Driverless Car Operators.

Because of that, I've learned a lot about the technology, and your take on how it operates is not correct. The cars rely on 8 different sensors to operate -- GPS is one of the 8 -- and there's actually very little infrastructure needed to operate them. Uber's already operating driverless cars in Pittsburgh, and the Google cars are in the Bay Area, Phoenix, and Seattle. Tesla cars have an autopilot. Their safety record far eclipses that of human drivers. It's not even particularly close.

That said, the roll out plan will look something like this:

First, driverless cars will be rolled out in closed systems. Airport shuttles and the like, that drive the same route repeatedly, are a good example. In fact, there are places where these are already active.

Second, driverless cars will be rolled out in Urban environments. Grid systems, reliable trffic speeds, etc. all make the transition easier. There's also less need for car ownership.

From there, they'll be made widely available nationwide.

I think the one aspect of driverless cars that people misunderstand most is the notion of ownership. It's hard to break the association that we all must own a car. Most people assume they'll eventually own a driverless car. What people fail to see is that driverless cars actually eliminate the need to own cars. They eliminate the need for parking.

Think of it this way: your car is a huge investment, one of the most expensive things you'll own, and it loses value almost immediately. And most importantly, it spends 98% of the time sitting still, doing nothing. What purpose does that serve? If other people could be using it during that time, you could eliminate the need for parking, the construction costs around home garages, etc. It literally changes everything. Think of all of the additional land in creates in cities. All of the space that goes to parking which can now be used to extend pedestrian spaces, create green space, build new and essential buildings to provide services.

I had a meeting with BMW recently. They are, as a company, preparing for a world in which nobody owns cars anymore. They are doing so aggressively, and are preparing for it 15 years out. Their timeline's likely accelerated, but it's a very real thing, and the transition will happen in our lifetimes and will happen quickly.

The way we get around, our mobility, will fundamentally change. Trying to picture how driverless cars fit our current transportation needs is the wrong way to look at it; instead, you should think about how driverless cars will change what mobility means.

Commuting to work will absolutely be "eliminated." Which is to say, commutes will be made in driverless vehicles. To commute, yes, you'd schedule a pick up/drop off. But I'm not sure I understand what's difficult about that.

There's actually no need for a hub, and the same car that brought you to work doesn't have to bring you home from work. The driverless car would arrive to pick you up, take you to your destination and drop you off. It would then pick up the next requested rider. Rinse and repeat. There's no need for cars to ever be off the road outside of scheduled (unscheduled) maintenance.

As far as where they're kept when they're not in use, it's not really an issue. Why? Because the need exists for a fraction of the space to store cars. Right now the majority of Americans own cars because there's no mechanism in place for sharing them. Removing ownership from the equation reduces the need to "park" cars; that's the entire point. When not in use, the cars will still be on the road, waiting for a request. And there needs to be far fewer of them. Think of it this way: at any given moment, what percentage of American cars are actually in use? That's basically how many cars you'll actually need.

As for who pays for it, the model looks no different than other privately owned utility companies. Who pays for Fios expansion in New York City? Who pays to expand internet and phone services to rural areas? It's not a problem without a solution, by any stretch.

As for the over-reaching government question, it doesn't strike me as a serious one. For one -- what are they shutting down? As I said, GPS is but one of 8 elements Google cars rely on. They can still function just as well with the other 7.

But more to the point -- isn't the "over-reaching government" fear just as relevant to the state and federal highway systems? An overreaching government can effectively stop you from driving your car tomorrow, if you know, said overreaching government was completely oblivious to the role commerce plays in a functioning society.

Edit: As for the safety concern, and limited sample size, I'd ask you to consider the comparison. Do you care to make the argument that people are better drivers? The data doesn't come even remotely close to supporting that.

Sorry,I don't see how a driverless system works outside of densely populated areas.

We estimate traffic based on "peak" hours,when most people are traveling to or from work.
The rest of the day traffic volumes drop significantly.
So you'd need many more vehicles in the peak "rush" hour then the rest of the day.

If you consider mass transit as an example,they run a lot more buses and longer trains in the morning and evening then the rest of the day.

The only way this idea seems plausible is mandatory staggering of working hours.

Even with that,I can't see an overwhelming need for driverless vehicles during weekday,overnight hours in suburban areas.

So it does seem that there are times they will have to be parked somewhere.

Also,in bad weather you have to put these vehicles somewhere till roads are passable.

As far as safety,if this driveless technology is so safe and reliable,how come there's no talk of using it for mass transit,a train seems a lot easier to make driverless then a car.

Again the only driverless vehicles I've seen are similar to the monorail at Newark airport,which never lived up to its advertising.

To your point about the Government being able to shut the transportation systems down now.
That is possible,but requires massive amounts of men and equipment, as well as the cooperation of all involved.

Shutting down a driverless transportation system requires pushing a button.

Great responses from Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame & Andrew Ruck.

This topic is so vastly reaching in scope, it is hard to even began a discussion on it. Too many interesting implications of technology like this and with this kind of massive change there are obvious objections.

I view this as absolutely inevitable. The timeline for how quickly this all is implemented is certainly a moving target, but I do believe the technology is a lot closer to being "there" than the vast majority of people realize.

I'd again point to the "Uber model" to fully explain why this is going to be so appealing to people. The MAIN reason most people OWN a car is convenience. That is the "practical" reason at least. Sure, you've got people who might like driving a fast car or who like toying around with the mechanics of a car they own, but for the most part your average person owns a car so they can go to work and the store when they want. Where they want when they want... Uber has changed that. Uber isn't "mass transit" where you must follow a set route and go to "hubs." Uber will come pick you up on any road and drop you off on any road. That basically allows the freedom of owning a car without the expense of owning a car. Taxis always did this, but technology has gotten to the point with phones that a couple clicks of your finger is all you need to "schedule" a ride. Complain all you waant about "scheduling" but that is pretty hassle-free to setup your transportation. You could argue it is more difficult to park your car in the garage. Now, enter the driverless car. It compliments this model perfectly. Currently, Uber is like a taxi service that is just easy to order. The driverless car allows Uber (or any similar company) to scale the hell out of their service and really allow almost instant pickup/dropoff. You could have a boatload of algorithms that tell these computers where to go to predict pickup and dropoffs even if they aren't scheduled in advance.

It's funny that so many older folks have the strongest feelings against this, because they stand to have the greatest gain IMO. What is one of the hardest parts about your health going downhill as you reach older ages? Losing your car. If you lose your car because you don't have the health to safely drive, that is often the point where people are forced into a retirement home. If we've got a fleet of driverless cars so shuttle the elderly, all of a sudden that seems like a massive improvement in their freedom IMO.

I'm one of the "old guys" who enjoys driving and the freedom it provides.

Also nothing beats the rush a 400hp Acura gives going down the road.Without exceeding the speed limit of course.

One thing driverless vehicles will affect are "spur of the moment" trips,quick trips to a grocery store, etc.

All I can say, they can stop me from driving when they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead hand !

I can name something that beats the rush a 400hp Acura gives you going down the road:

30,000 fewer traffic deaths per anum.

What about the spur of the moment issues? Let's go out to dinner. I have to run to the store for whatever. Making a request for a vehicle to me is more cumbersome than just jumping in the car. And then there's the whole question of cost tradeoffs. Is owning a vehicle better economically that using a driverless car? It may depend on the frequency with which one is out of the road.

And with work commuting ... how to you factor in bad weather? Ice? Snow? Who determines how much time to pad the normal commute with to compensate for the unknown extra time?

Last is scheduling. What happens when demand exceeds supply (of vehicles). No one can guarantee prompt pick up of a person without an unlimited number of vehicles. So one may have to wait extended periods of time until the backlog is reduced. It's a queueing theory related problem unless supply of cars is unconstrained.

Honest question for you. If you were asked to choose one of these two things, which would you choose:

1. The ability to make a spur of the moment decision to go out to dinner without waiting 6 minutes for a perfectly safe car to arrive, but 30,000+ Americans die in car accidents each year.

or

2. Having to wait 6 minutes for a car when you want to go to Shoney's, and 30,000 American lives are saved and countless millions are saved in healthcare costs.

As for the inclement weather and who makes decisions regarding how much time a commute should take, there's a couple important points. First, how do you do that now? I'm willing to bet it starts with G and ends with oogle. Second, what do you think causes traffic? Cars? Or the people operating cars? Much of the uncertainty in travel time is removed from the equation with autonomous vehicles.

3. Supply of cars doesn't have to be unconstrained. It has to be proportionate to the supply of people who have to get places. Thankfully, I think we keep numbers on this somewhere.

Oh, sorry. I didn't agree with you. I bet that really chaps your tender ass.

Sorry, you're citing the the fact that people are imperfect operators that make stupid decisions that lead to deaths -- a whole lot of deaths, no less -- as a reason to continue letting people operate cars en masse?

Because theoretically we can probably get better at it if we do things we, as a species, have shown no inclination towards doing? You're willing to risk, and put other people at risk, of elderly drivers, texting drivers, drunk drivers, high drivers, straight up bad drivers, etc. when a much better alternative exists because "people should put their phones down while driving" and you don't want to wait 6 minutes for a car.

Cool.