Robocars, just like any car on California roads
 

There are fifty autonomous/self-driving cars driving around California roads and highways, four have gotten into accidents since September after getting their permits. Three were from Google Lexus SUVs and one from Delphi Audi. They must have an observer/driver behind the steering wheel at all times. They have reported that they were minor fender benders and more importantly, none of their cars were at fault!

News from The Associated Press

Personally, I can't fathom the fascination and investment in this. I don't want it, I wouldn't pay anything for it, I won't even have a car with On Star, much less this. But then, I can't relate to "normals" and what motivates them anyway.

I also don't get this fascination with computer driven cars,
is anyone asking for this ability? I don't think so!

I do understand that reducing accidents is very important.
There are MUCH better ways of making this happen and having computer driven cars is NOT the way.

I would think the most common accident is on the freeway when a car in front of you stops or slows too quickly so you run into them.
This case is not difficult to handle with a computer.
Changing lanes on the freeway is a difficult task I don't think a computer can do this better than a human, the biggest problem in fact is the blind spots, which can be solved by cameras that apparently they think should not be legal.

I personally proposed 10 years ago that freeway driving would be safest if cars where connected together into groups, what I called an EV Train, using magnets like a kids toy train. Now there is no way to crash into the car in front of you, the aerodynamics are MUCH MUCH better, and the locomotive towing the lot of cars is recharging their batteries via regen, and you don't need to drive the car either, so an EV can be used in longer distance driving and arrives fully charged for the local driving.
And the key is this can be done TODAY without any new infrastructure.
Let me correct that, it could have been done 10 years ago.

That's a commendable goal yet injury/death rates currently are at historical lows. As such I don't see the need for radical intervention.

Driverless is radical.

It would greatly reduce traffic. Most traffic issues are caused by human error. For example, not letting someone cut in when they need to exit. If all cars could communicate and work together (unlike humans) traffic jams would be a thing of the past.

I agree the slowdowns/traffic jams are more of a problem than minor accidents themselves, as it effects hundreds of people, some being late to appointments can be rather costly. And idling cars causes pollution.
But there is no way ALL cars will be computer driven, you can't outlaw all older cars, that would never fly in the US, we still allow motorcycles even though they are unsafe and a traffic hazard, and 1961 Corvairs, which are unsafe at any speed. :)

The train idea would operate only in the fast lane, and you can equip your car to be 'train capable' or not, your choice.

Like anything, it would take time to work out the merging of old and new technologies. But there are major benefits to going with computer driver for the majority of people.

Imagine how disappointed passengers would be if they could not slow down to see accidents!

If they ever looked up from their phones, woke up, etc.

Yeah, that's what they all say :-)

I could see a use for them, like when I was doing the 5-6 hour drive once a week. Would have been nice to nap for a couple of hours on the way, instead of either fighting to keep my eyes open, or pull off to the side and try to sleep a bit.

google is officially evil, your privacy belongs to them. Another solution in search of a problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Gz6eSatM8

Folks don't understand that they are borrowing the road, that somehow it is a sanitary environment. They are claiming BS figures and if you believe any of it, then you are a chump or a shill.

Follow the money.