While they are not flying cars, self-driving cars are no longer science fiction.
http://lifeasahuman.com/2015/mind-spirit/food-for-thought/self-driving-cars-continue-to-move-closer-to-mainstream/"

The " at the end of the link prevented it working. Here it is without the "

http://lifeasahuman.com/2015/mind-s...s-continue-to-move-closer-to-mainstream/

I think the people proposing these things do not understand the problem, let alone the solution. Driving in all circumstances is something that humans can find hard work sometimes. It is way beyond any technology we have now or are likely to see in the medium to distant future. There are moral choices too. Do you kill a child to save the occupants? How on earth do you build these into any conceivable machine? Who is responsible, if the guidance system goes wrong and causes a crash? The manufacturers? The Insurance company? The occupants? This is not an abstraction. It has happened.

Nor do I see any great demand for driverless cars. I think this is a technophile dream of manufacturers who see it as an additional sales gimmick, but I don't think the public really wants it, particularly if it costs a bomb, which it will if its done properly. Many, including me, quite enjoy driving anyway.

I have given up with smartphones for much the same reasons. The one I had provided all sorts of wonders that I didn't really need, and demanded daily (or more) recharging. I bought a simple dumb phone that does texts and phone calls (no camera) It cost £10 and I charge it about once a fortnight or more! You have to ask which is dumber; spending a fortune on an item that requires constant attention or minimising hassle and saving hundreds of pounds? You reach a point where the features are more of a burden than anything else, reducing the reliability, boosting the cost, and causing more hassle than they are worth.

I'm not a technophobe by the way. My hobby is designing and building bits of electronic kit for fun. I keep an open mind on new technology, but not so open that my brain falls out!

As long as a women driver doesn't programme it........!!!

I haven't got use to cruise control because I don't make many long journeys. Don't feel fully in control when its on.

MCP !!! Everyone knows what excellent drivers women are

(we know where you live too! )

Sorry!! Just playing the boring stereotypical "women are bad drivers card" because off work with nothing better to do except drop pain killers.

Actually my other half has improved -- she will now drive to Gordale and even to Saughall. Her next big step for mankind will be chester

I've been thinking about this quite a bit since you mentioned it before and sort of been putting a priority/avoidance list together. So far it goes like this ....

Avoid:-
1. A person not in a vehicle.
2. Another moving vehicle.
3. Damage to vehicle itself.
3. A building/structure.

At each of those points there is also a scale, especially number 3 where there may be a choice of actions so the priority is to enable the option that minimises the damage to the vehicle itself.

Liability could be handled by a certification system and insurance. There would be no blame for owner/manufacturer/keeper for a certified car provided it was being operated correctly, basically there would only be first person insurance - your car gets damaged then the insurance pays for it to be repaired whether your car smashed into a wall or someone else's car drove right through you.

I still think you way overate human capability for driving, many people have no idea how to handle a skid or even know when to brake. Panic is not a good conducer of safety. Our eyesight is very poor, the brain makes loads up to make up for it. It is the need for "control" that drives the arrogance that makes people think they are good drivers.