We should ban self driving cars.

Now for my first argument. A governments sole purpose is to protect, and ensure the wellbeing of its citizens and its environment. A good government should prioritise those things above everything else, and that is why self driving cars must be banned by the government; they are unsafe, and a danger to all. We have to accept that, as 'cool', and 'innovative' as they might seem, they are still technology. They are still susceptible to glitches and hackers, and may easily have errors in their code. Only this time, the tiniest glitch, or the tiniest mistake in the code could potentially cost you your life, and multiple other's lives. This time, the hacker that gets in could cost you your life, and multiple other's lives. Advanced as they may be, we have to accept that self driving cars are still technology. They are still the same as your iPhone, laptop, and iPad. Just like with any technology, self driving cars can simply not be trusted to run perfectly every time. Ordinarily this would be okay, however with self driving cars, this is a serious danger to all, and if the government truly wants the best for our country, and for our people, they would ban self driving cars.

On to my second argument. In the U.S alone, 15 million people's jobs rely on the driving industry. And that is just one country. Think about how many people in the world have jobs that rely on the driving industry. There's the driving schools, the ride share companies, public transport drivers, car manufacturers, and more! Just imagine every single one of those people losing their jobs. Every single one of their families going through poverty. Every single one of them being forced to evacuate their properties. All because of the increase in self driving cars on the road. By 2050, it has been predicted that there will be 10 million self driving cars on the road. And the popularity of them will only grow from there on. The need for businesses such as driving schools, ride share companies, public transport drivers, and car manufacturers will be minimised so greatly that eventually they will all be forgotten about. Companies will have no choice but to go out of business. 15 million people in the U.S alone will be without a job. Think of all the chaos this will cause. The government cannot let this happen. Hence, self driving cars should be banned.

In addition there are 6 different levels to autonomous vehicles. (Level 0 - 5. https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15079828/autonomous-self-driving-car-levels-car-levels/ ). I do not think your ban is intended to capture them all as that would include cruise control on cars. I assume your ban is where the vehicle is fully autonomous being level 5. 

For the purposes of this argument I agree with that statement, and will be using this definition in my retort,

You stated (slightly restated so please correct where I was wrong):

With the foundation laid;  I have a number of disagreements with your position.

1.  The term ban, and the way you used the term ban is total and absolute.  It is an infinite prohibition.   The assumption appears to be that AV's will never be able to overcome the proposed inadequacies.   Prohibitions are a very difficult position for any government to take.   I do not think references are required to show how governments have changed their attitudes towards prohibited items, such as alcohol (US), marijuana (Canada, Uruguay), woman driving (Saudi Arabia).   I put to you that the premise of a prohibitive ban is not a feasible approach based on the totality of it.

2.  AV's are not unsafe.   They can be unsafe (which technically makes them a statistical danger to all), however are not inherently unsafe.   AV's of level 4 and 5 are used in factories, warehouses, and mines all throughout the world. One of the world innovators is https://clearpathrobotics.com/. These innovations are developed for efficiency and safety.   A quick search through a few  There is another area of level 4 AV automation and that is commercial airlines.  With the increase of AV use in the workplace, there is not an increase in workplace injuries.  https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causinj/index.htm

3. I agree that there is a potential to glitches, hackers and other technical issues.  Despite the potential for technical nuances, banning the technology for fear of the potential glitches.  A risk benefit needs to be established.  We allow people drivers licenses, who are far more susceptible to glitches (fatigue, illness, drugs, distraction).  If a glitch is identified in one car, it can be fixed in all.  If a glitch is discovered in one driver, it cannot be fixed in all drivers.  

4.  I agree that nothing can run perfectly at all times.  However I put to you that is an unreasonable standard,  The standard we use to permit a 16yo to drive a 2ton box 70mph can be argued as a little soft, however it is the acceptable limit of risk benefit established by governments.  And while I agree that the standard should be far stricter... a perfect standard (which is implied by your narrative) is excessive.

5.  Finally, the economics.  Society has been forced to retool, many many times.  30 years ago there was no Internet.  Look at all the jobs created because of it.  While there will absolutely be an impact, we can do things to minimize that impact, and convert it to a positive.  From an environmental perspective (which you identified), you can get far better fuel efficiency, and road usage, with a great number of cars on the road, when they are in swarm communication and autonomous.  When the lights go green, all cars start at the same time.  The regulation of speed and spacing drastically improves fuel efficiency.  https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-advice/swarm-intelligence-for-autonomous-cars-explained

You have not established that there is a legitimate safety concern warranting a ban.

You have not established that the economic consequences would not be mitigated in the same way as other disruptive technologies

I have demonstrated the environmental benefit

I have demonstrated the AV technology is in use all around the world currently.

First of all, you said that because AVs are not inherently unsafe, they should not be banned. Whilst the first part of this statement is true, just because they are not inherently unsafe, it doesn't mean that they are incapable of being unsafe. They can still be unsafe and cause great damage, such as serious injury, death, or damage to the land. And I believe that, since we both agreed the sole purpose of the government is to protect and ensure the wellbeing of its citizens and its environment, the government should ban self driving cars because they are a risk to the safety of its citizens, even if they are not inherently unsafe. 

Second, you stated that there needed to be a risk benefit needs to be established. Even though there may be positives associated with self driving cars, they can take lives, and surely no benefit can be so valuable that it is worth some people losing their lives. You also stated that a glitch in one car can be fixed in all cars, which is true. However, I feel like one glitch in one car can still cost at least one person their lives, and the glitch will not be able to be fixed in time to prevent that, whether as with human drivers, they do have the ability to spontaneously fix issues.

Third, you pointed out that we hold a soft standard for 16 year olds to be able to start driving basic vehicles. I must admit, this does have some truth to it. However, we have to give people opportunities to be able to have experience, and to be able to drive. Also, humans do have special instincts that will take technology perhaps hundreds of years to gain the basics of. What I mean by this is that if a tree fell down on the road, but as you were driving past a child ran out on to the road to get their ball, a human would most likely try and swerve to hit the tree, rather than hit the small child. However, can self driving cars be trusted to make that same decision? Probably not.

Finally, you stated that things can evolve and be improved over time.This is also true, but think about the damage that could be caused over that time taken for them to evolve; hundreds could lose their lives. Thousands could be seriously injured. Millions could lose their jobs. The government could spend far too much money investing in the evolution of self driving cars. Is it really worth waiting that long, losing so much, just to wait for something that may or may not be used in our future? I think not. 

I agree that it cannot be disputed that AV's can be unsafe.  In addition it also cannot be disputed that the results of that potential safety issue could result in significant injury, death or property loss.

You stated that the government should ban AV's even though there is not an inherent safety issue.  And whiles we agree with the role of a government, I would argue that role does not include providing absolute protection from risk.  There are many products that do cause injury and death, even if it is rare.  Airplanes, vaccines, elevators, electricity, fire...  virtually everything.  When there are issues of safety, the government implements regulations.  That is to limit the potential risks associated with the regulated item. 

In summary, effective regulation would be required.  A outright ban contradicts the governments position on other risk related elements, impairs the ability to use technology to try to solve a known public health issue, and ignores the market driven check and balance on risk and safety through the insurance industry. 

I agree with your statement that there are many other things that cause danger besides self driving cars, which, of course, is true. I'm not implying that the government should ban all things that can cause danger, such as airplanes, however I will stand beside what I have been arguing - the government should ban self driving cars. The difference between banning self driving cars, and banning airplanes is that cars are more popular than airplanes - the have a larger quantity than planes - there are 1.4 billion cars in the world, but only around 39,000 aircraft vehicles in the world. This is mostly because the average person has a much greater need for a car than a plane. So, if our ordinary cars were to be replaced with self driving cars, there would still be more self driving cars than planes, meaning that self driving cars pose more of a danger than your typical airplane. 

You also raised the point that it is far more dangerous to have a 16 year old driving a car than a self driving car. This may be true, however I must add that it can also be possibly better to have a 16 year old driving a car than a self driving car. What I mean by this is that allowing humans to drive can open up career opportunities for them, benefits their brain, gives them a sense of self worth or belief, and independence and responsibility. Whilst having 16 year olds drive cars can pose some safety risks, so do self driving cars, and the reason I say that 16 year olds driving could b safer than driving is because they have judgement to be able to make the decision to swerve on the road to avoid hitting a child, or an animal, even though it may mean that they could hit a tree fallen, or a lamp post. However, it will take hundreds of years for technology to be able get a basic understanding of that judgement, and, as previously mentioned, we can't wait around for that to develop, because it could cost us money, and lives. 

Having said all of that, I would like to hear some of your other points as to why you believe that self driving cars should not be banned! :)

You argue that because of the volume difference "...if our ordinary cars were to be replaced with self driving cars, there would still be more self driving cars than planes, meaning that self driving cars pose more of a danger than your typical airplane."   I agree with that statement.  However your argument is based on a presumption that the AV's are less safe than current vehicles.  

You have not supported the safety assumption with any scientific evidence.

You have not supported the safety assumption with any subjective evidence

I on the other hand have shown a report that suggests a significant safety improvement.

I have also shown other industries have improves overall safety with respect to automation.

Therefore I respectfully submit that the assumption you draw with respect to banning AV's because they are dangerous is unfounded and unsupported.

You further state, as a rough summary  that a 16 year old has judgment that a compute cant have for hundreds of years.   The statistics show that teens are 4x more likely to be in a fatal accident than non teens.   (http://www.autos.com/driving-and-safety/car-crash-statistics-based-on-age-and-location). There are many speculative reasons.  What is a fact is that teens pose a 400% higher risk on the roads than non-teens.  

You have not shown anything to support that AV's present any risk, let alone one worse than the status quo.  You have assumed that autonomous driving cannot be programmed to make ethical decisions, and you have not supported that.  

I respectfully submit that:

a) You have not supported the safety assumption with any scientific evidence.

c) You have contradicted yourself by allowing some risk, which is calculable and known, and supported eliminating a risk you cannot quantify

d) You have improperly drawn assumptions on how the technology does work, could work, or how long it takes, as you have provided no support for your position.

e). I have demonstrated reports and use cases in other industries where automation as improved safety and you did not refute them.

f). I provided a report that demonstrates AV's will reduce collisions by 90% and you did not refute it.
g) I discussed the environmental benefit with respect to higher capacity and better efficiency on our roads, and you did not refute that.  

h) I also discussed the insurance industry as a significant gate keeper in the safety machine.  You did not refute that.

Therefore I do not see how you'r position that "We should ban self driving cars" can be supported.