Now we're arguing something completely different than "a carless society." Your statement was "increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone." Note - I haven't said word one about safety. "Reduce fuel consumption by 20%" is something CARB set out to do in the '80s. They hit 11% without driverless cars. We learned in vehicle design that allowing aerodynamics to not count against a semi's taxed length would increase efficiency of the trucking fleet by 40%. For that matter, "following too close" cuts your fuel use by a shitload; we used to drag semis all the time on long road trips. You can get a '77 buick up to 60MPG if you're willing to play bumper tag.

There's a lot of variables there, and you're just now starting to inject them. My point was that the benefits of "driverless cars" suggested by the article aren't actually the benefits of "driverless cars" and that if they actually were, vanpools would have accomplished them.

Here we are.

Before we start off on a whole 'nuther argument where I have no skin in the game, can we call the old one done?

Lenin argued that if perfected, The State would increase safety, decrease cost, and improve efficiency for everyone. Thing is, people ain't perfect.