You know, for someone who complains about people's debating skills, mine included, you tend to throw out some pretty flippant and pointless comments. I'm trying to make a point here and get a bit of debate going, and all I'm getting from you is sarky one-liners. Wait: why am I surprised? Do you think you might actually address any of my points rather than just retorting with the mental equivalent of a crayon drawing, or is that too much to ask?

People are stubborn to change. I don't think their stubbornness should hinder technological advancements. Hence: tough titties.

Since you want to debate, I'll add this: your slippery slope argument ignores how the market works. If cars for old losers are in high demand, people will produce them, and those companies typically will have lobbying power to prevent the legislation that you predict.

I honestly don't know, but I see it this way: once autonomous cars are in large numbers on the road the older cars will be phased out, as the (let's call them robocars for handiness' sake) robocars will not want to have to predict essentially unpredictable human behaviour, such as being drunk behind the wheel or cutting one another off for fun. So I think it will end up being illegal to a) manufacture non-robocars and/or b) drive them, unless you end up with specialised driving tracks where those who wish to remember what it was like to drive can do so in safety and without endangering the people in robocars (who, to all intents and purposes, can now be called passengers). I just can't see, in the end, the roads being shared by both, especially if, as that program pointed out, traffic lights would be removed from roads as being no longer required.

Also, as to your first line: I was talking mainly about people losing their livelihoods. That's not stubborn, that's just a will to survive.

Lobbying power means a lot. Plus, things like the sports car industry will not be phased out for that reasoning for a long, long time. There's just too much money in it.

They need to adapt.

Have you watched the programme? You should: it's very enlightening. We're talking about Ford being involved here.
In what way? If you're a truck driver or a taxi cab driver and have been one for most of your life, and there are no other driving jobs available, how do you adapt? Most will be too old to start out afresh; driving for a living will be all they know.

I will, even though as a rule of thumb I ignore people's documentary recs since the docus that people enjoy are the ones that pander to them.

By getting a new job. It sucks, but it's reality. Reminds me of this topic though, which is pretty interesting: https://hackernoon.com/is-ai-driving...m-307c98c87fff

Well I wouldn't say this panders to me, as I have no strong feelings either way about automated driving, as I pointed out in my previous posts. However, Horizon is a long-established and respected BBC show and uses input from some of the most respected minds or experts in whatever field they're discussing. I am surprised though that they hardly even touched on the idea of massive job and livelihood losses, when it's such a huge issue. That kind of disappointed me. I would have liked to have seen better and less biased argument with both sides being allowed to have their say. There is some hint of trepidation in a few of the points, but largely it's spun as being both positive and unavoidable.
Again though, that's very flippant and careless. How does a man who has driven a truck for forty years start again? Or a woman who has driven a bus or taxicab? It's very easy to say "just get a new job", but we both know the reality of trying to start again at that age. It just does not happen.

You get a new job, you put your nose to the grindstone. If you can't survive that way you can use the other safety nets that we already have in place for people in that situation. I never said it was easy, but if society bends that way (which I do not think will happen in the near future) there really isn't anything else to do but adapt. Do you have an alternative or are you just going to get pissy at the bluntness of my opinion?

No, I'm saying (which you seem to be wilfully ignoring) that the first six words of your reply are not that easy. Maybe for you: you're young. If the worst were to happen and I had to get a new job, I'd find it very hard at my age. People don't hire over-fifties unless you're in the high-paying corporate world and have a track record, which I don't. So to say "get a new job" makes it seem terribly easy, but it isn't.

Of course I don't have any solutions. This is why I'm making the point. It's not a case of who can come up with the best idea; I'm saying massive job losses will result from vehicle automation. You're saying so what, let them get another job, which is, on any level, flippant, no matter what you say or how you frame it. You're not providing any answers either. You are, however, trivialising the impact this is going to have on millions of families.

You're the only one here who's saying anything about it being easy. I never said anything of the sort and am aware of how difficult that can be.

My solution: let the industry continue on its current trajectory despite workers in that industry being displaced by the change. It's not as if this will be an overnight transition that will take everyone by surprise. Those who are displaced will need to adapt, that's just the reality of the situation TH. Those who cannot cope with that can rely on the welfare systems that we already have in place to help the unemployed.