system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I think that the whole self-driving car technology is overhyped and that there are a number of much more important aspects of automobile innovation that we should be focusing on first. CMV

This kind of started off as an argument with my roommates and I, however I recently noticed on thread here on Reddit (the one on what people 100 years from now will find barbaric that we find acceptable now) that my opinion seems to be the unpopular one on the matter.

I live in Toronto, which for all intents and purposes is a fairly large, densely populated city (~3 million in the city proper), and so yes I deal with congestion, gridlock, and generally stupid drivers on a regular basis. Nevertheless I still love driving. Part of the reason is because of how inefficient our public transit system is one could still get around the city in the same amount of time as it would to drive, even in rush-hour traffic. Sure parking might be an expensive inconvenience from time to time, but I like many people drive not just as a mode of transportation, but because its actually an enjoyable activity for me.

I understand that self-driving cars *could* eliminate gridlock and save "countless" lives by removing the human error that comes with driving (I emphasize the could because from what I know there aren't any actual statistics or studies that I am aware of that can support this). That said, I think people forget that even extremely simple technology does fail from time to time. If anything were to go wrong in a self-driving car, how would someone be able to intervene? I mean if we were introduced to self-driving cars tomorrow, I wouldn't be as concerned because most people would know how to control the vehicle. But if years from now, when people have become accustomed to self-driving cars, would they know how to control the car if the self-driving mechanism fail, or would it be just a matter of placing complete faith in a computer technology created by the same humans who's error we're trying to avoid?

I personally think it would also take what enjoyment there is in driving away from the experience. As mentioned, if I wanted a mode of transportation where I didn't have to do anything (at all) I would just take public transit. I enjoy driving because I can control both my speed and my route (if I want to go out of my way to take a more scenic route home, I have the option), all in the comfort of a private vehicle with my own music playing and my own company. Although a self-driving car wouldn't affect the latter, the former (which is the reason why I drive rather than ask others for rides) would be compromised. 

There's an entire culture and community around driving that revolves around making improvements to what you drive and I can't help but feel that'd completely disappear with self-driving cars. I wouldn't be opposed to people buying self-driving cars if that's truly what they want (no different that people who chose to buy cars with automatic transmissions) or even if there were the option to turn on a self-driving mode (which I'll admit would be nice in bumper-to-bumper traffic where you're really not even driving anyways), but my view is exactly that to have the **option**. So Reddit, I apologize for my long-winded post but I look forward to you changing my view so that I might be more open to the idea of this technology that so many people are sure might become the new norm !

EDIT: I completely forgot to include the second part of my argument. I just personally feel that rather than focus on some novelty (which is how I see it) like self-driving cars, we should focus on things that improve the driving experience altogether, like higher fuel efficiency or cheap, affordable electric engines.
gpt
It just makes sense that machine driven cars can drive more efficiently than humans.  Google's self-driving cars have yet to get in an accident after almost 300,000 cumulative miles on the road.  This is with the cars being surrounded by humans who constantly make errors in judgment due to any number of reasons.  Being in a hurry, being drunk, not paying attention to the road, etc. If all of these cars acted in a way that was predictable because they are machine controlled then you're going to have fewer teens who die in a tragic car accident because they took a turn too quickly, or because they swerved into oncoming traffic while drunk.

Even assuming there are still humans on the road, machines will be able to react faster and with more precision to conditions that could create an accident.  Hell, if the kid who was drunk had an autopilot in his car then there wouldn't even be any chance of him crashing into someone and he wouldn't have to take a cab home.

Machines do fail, but their failures can be corrected.  Glitches can be fixed more easily than human error.  Drunk drivers will exist as long as there are humans, but code can be changed to correct the errors that machines make.

Self driving cars will make the roads significantly safer for everyone involved.  Just look at google's first attempt and how successful it's been, and it's their **first attempt.**  The technology can only improve.  Also note that there is still a manual mode.

Thrill seekers will always have the option to buy cars that can be driven manually, and there will always be ways to jury rig your car so that you can drive it manually.  The culture of people who enjoy driving is not going to die off with the introduction of cars that can self-drive because they're still going to enjoy driving.

It's not a zero sum game, improving self driving cars doesn't mean we're not working on fuel efficiency.  The two are vastly different fields and the people doing one can't be easily converted to another.  If we were to stop all research into self-driving cars it wouldn't mean that these other fields would do any better.

Horseback riding is still around even though we've invented cars, isn't it?