But Geneva Convetion treaty requires that drivers "shall at all times be able to control their vehicles," and provisions against reckless driving usually require "the conscious and intentional operation of a motor vehicle."
Hence, no reading, no having breakfast with a family (like Caleb suggested), no watching a movie for the driver...
I enjoy driving... to a point. I drive from Chicago to Boston... and back, four times a year. Sometimes drive straigt through and sometimes stay one night at a hotel. Either case it can get monotonous and sometimes dangerous.
When traffic gets congested around rush hours drivers can get aggressive and piss other drivers off... and sometimes they respond, in kind. Driving under these conditions is tense. I would love a vehicle that could respond rationally, being much more aware of surroundings... and being able to appropriately respond in a few miliseconds instead of tenths of seconds, at best if driver is optimally alert.
Even if only one vehicle along a significant stretch of road had this capability it would help.
If all vehicles had this capability the capacity of highways would more than double, and with greater safety too. All it would take is dedicating one lane, of three lanes, exclusively to such vehicals to double the trafic capacity.
The later scenerio would require V2V and V2I and a high performace vehicle, in addition to whatever sensors and controls were on board.
As to being a boon to insurance companise, it would really undermine the 'neccessity' for them.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.