It is an incorrect assumption to state that it is inexpensive to retrofit the current vehicles. From a very fundamental standpoint, most cars do not have computer controlled steering. Throttle is easy to control with a computer in modern cars (cut fuel form the EFI). Brakes would not be a difficult feat, although there would be quite a bit of work to make the brakes smooth, which would require some calibration on each car. The steering would be a pain. Each car reacts differently to steering input, so, once again, the system would have to be calibrated for each model. Also, do you really trust a computer retrofit ot a car to truly recognize what is going on during a snow storm, or on ice? If it is based on GPS, then the system would not recognize the difference between sliding sideways in a northerly direction, and driving straight in a northerly direction.

The above assumes a modern car with cruise control and EFI. What about my friend's 1967 Chevelle? Good luck trying to retrofit that.

the real question is this, would it be required to retrofit your car? Would there be a law passed saying that on Nov 11, 2016 all cars had ot be computer-controlled or be off the road? That would get so much opposition that it couldn't pass as a law. Also keep in mind that car issues are a state thing, so all states would have to agree, or else your nifty computer-controlled car would die at the AZ border. If, somehow, the states passed this law and required retrofits, who would pay for it? this is a trick question because either way, it is more money out of our pockets.

Automatic roads and cars may be a reality someday, but it is far off in the future. Don't fool yourself into thinking it is a remotely simple task.

On a side note, I would immediately disable the functionality (or just not buy) any car that can "over-ride" my steering decision based on GPS. If that is truly what the system does (I haven't heard of it or researched it), than it is impractical and dangerous. What if a car is stopped in front of me and the only way to avoid it is to quickly change lanes, or pull into the shoulder. I don't want some computer system over-riding that decision and forcing me to crash into oit because it can't see the stopped car, or because I did not use my turn signal.

I know nothing about this but I think that the override steering was based on proximity sensors. Instead of having it override my steering I'd rather have it couple with my speedometer input and light a warning on my dash, "YOU'RE F#$CKED!!!!"

I'm opposed for several reasons:

1. Feasibility. Let's face it. I'm an engineer. I'm not a mathematician. The complexity of this system including gathering all the inputs, full-scale testing, etc etc make it impossible. Even talking about it seems like a waste of breath. Instead of wasting our time with this, why not explore other more feasible plans? For example, fixing our damn mass transit system so that it's functional. After we fix mass transit, it would be much more economically and technolocally feasible to automate just that.

2. Accountability. People are lazy enough as it is. Instead of giving them a means to be even lazier, why don't we enforce the accountability that we should have in the first place? Why not require racing-type driving lessons NOW? Why not make it so that you have to get 95% on the test to pass it? Driving is a privilege, not a right! EARN IT.

3. Enumeration. Above in my post, I said "several" reasons. I really only have two of them but in order to justify my use of the word "several" I needed to make a third point. Regardless of quality of content, three points are always more convincing than a measly two.

I agree with your 3rd point. Three is always better than 2.

Counterpoints:

Feasibility: It would take time and money to bring about the automation of vehicles. Through inter-communication the vehicles will interact with each other, preventing accidents. Cadillac has already done this with a test fleet on U.S. highways. Through their GPS systems (around $500), the vehicles detected land departure and an imminent collision. The car behind was forced to slow, the car making the lane departure was forced back into its lane, until both vehicles understood what the intentions of the other vehicle were, ie. whether the lane departure car was actually changing lanes, or the driver was just asleep at the wheel.

Accountability: I bring to bear a question: Would you retake the driving course today if the laws changed? Would you pass? Would your family members do the same? Does the public transit system, in any form in the U.S., serve well enough to take on the load of those people who would not be able to pass a racing style test, or refuse to do so through the idea of grandfather clauses? Will the state(s) spend the money refitting their training fleets to include large or older vehicles, such as SUVs (an undying fixture to the U.S. roads) and trucks, or, as was pointed out by Nap, high torque, RWD, muscle cars? Will the latter include modifications that are common on those type vehicles? Will the interested be required to know how to command all of the vehicles in the fleet (take into account the 60 and up crowds who would choose to go through the new training)? Do you take the licenses away from those who have them already, ie. 15-18 year olds that may have had them for a few years, and require they retake the tests? How important is it that you be able to communicate with the outside world while in your vehicle?

My point is that neither is immediately feasible. I wish it were so, especially considering how badly everyone wants to clean up the environment, have less vehicular fatalities, and spend less money at the pump (damn oil companies f*cking us every which way). Unfortunately, nobody will agree to either solution, never mind that both are better for everybody. They like to think that we are free peoples and that these freedoms include everything that is a standard accoutrement to their lives. Damn. Now I'm a sad panda.

>> Would you retake the driving course today if the laws changed?
Of course not. I'm at work. But if they were scheduled to change an in order for me to renew my license I had to pass the more vigorous test, I would certainly put a significant effort into it.

>> Would you pass?
Hell yes. I rule at everything. Except pregnancy.

>> Would your family members do the same?
The ones who put forth the effort and were physically capable could. The rest would be unable to drive and would instead have to take public transit.

>> Does the public transit system, in any form in the U.S., serve well enough to take on the load of those people who would not be able to pass a racing style test, or refuse to do so through the idea of grandfather clauses?
The people will come in waves as their licenses expire and the transit systems would grow accordingly. Look at New York for example. Comparatively few people own cars there and even less drive them.

>> Will the state(s) spend the money refitting their training fleets to include large or older vehicles, such as SUVs (an undying fixture to the U.S. roads) and trucks, or, as was pointed out by Nap, high torque, RWD, muscle cars?
The state does not use old vehicles. They put those up at state auction. I've been to it . There were probably a thousand old-school Crown Vic police interceptors. Why am I answering this question? What does this have to do with making a test harder and dumping money into public transit?

>> Will the latter include modifications that are common on those type vehicles?
Damn you and your intelli-speak. What the hell are we talking about here? Common like what? Steering?

>> Will the interested be required to know how to command all of the vehicles in the fleet (take into account the 60 and up crowds who would choose to go through the new training)?
I still don't know what we're talking about but my short answer is: Yes, you must understand how to command any vehicle that you're going to be driving. That's only common sense. The last thing I want to hear from a driver is, "Ohhhhh so THAT was the ejection seat!"

>> Do you take the licenses away from those who have them already, ie. 15-18 year olds that may have had them for a few years, and require they retake the tests?
Of course not. We catch them as their licenses expire and require them to pass the "current" test then. That's always the way things like this work.

>> How important is it that you be able to communicate with the outside world while in your vehicle?
I like giving high-fives and think that it's pressingly important to do so -- especially while traveling at high-speeds. The higher the speed, the higher the five!

Of course there would be a grandfather clause (there always is), but that is not to say that the renewal test would be the same as the old one. It would require at least 3 J-turns, and a 90-degree turn drifting with the speed staying above 45 the entire time. Imagine working at the DMV with that test...

Adumb, the reason I asked the question about the state training fleet, is I am concerned that the state won't spend the money to update their fleets and all the utilities and services to keep the fleet running at all times. The key question to this is: what about all the people that don't/won't drive a sports car designed for aggressive driving and handling? Or those people with families and, consequently, family movers (mini-vans, SUVs, large sedans), which do not have any aggressive driving behaviour whatsoever. What happens then, is that you have to train everybody on every type of vehicle in respective tests to each vehicle, because the state doesn't know what that person is driving now, or what they'll be driving in ten years. Case in point: Lisa expressed a want to own and drive a classic Mustang. I would like to know if she knows how to race it right now? This is the purpose for placing old cars in the fleet as well. They drive differently than new RWD vehicles, mostly because they don't have the same road-holding safety equipment that newer vehicles do.

I have a new proposal. Instead of offering a free driving course in state high schools and offices, offer a course that is essentially a racing training school. These usually cost a couple thousand dollars, which includes the cost of the license, and take many hours to complete. Have a couple vehicles from each category (sports FWD/RWD/MR, coupe/sedan normal, SUV/minivan, light/heavy truck) and alternate the training schedules for them. Further, require any persons who purchase a high-horsepower vehicle (german import, domestic exotic/sports/muscle, import exotic/sports) to buy a better course and license designed specifically for their car. Raise the minimum driving age to 18; this would take the licenses out of the hands of people who already have them and are under 18.

The one answer I don't have for this is the public transportation system. The few places where these systems are good, it has taken years of high population to get it right. When suddenly the public transit systems have to move upwards of 700% of their previous load, it would never be adequate, especially in those cities with no or little public transit (go to Idaho and you'll know what I'm talking about).

A few points:
1. The idea of taking away licenses of 17-yr olds would not work. It would have to be grandfathered in. Otherwise there would be a huge mess of pre-paid car insurance, and car payments for a cars they can no-longer drive. It just isn't going to happen.

2. The improved driving training does not actually need to be "race-inspired". What it needs to do is teach students how to do the following:
a. Be aware of the car dimensions (anyone who has seen driving in Europe knows what I am talking about. They could fit a semi-into a compact parking spot, and drive a bus the wrong way on a one-way street without hindering the flow of traffic in the other direction)
b. Be aware of surroundings. This includes knowing which lanes around you are open, even if you are not about to change lanes. This also includes looking head passed the car directly in front of you. When I used to speed a lot I got really good at this since I was always checking for cops (now my car can't speed, so I have lost some skill).
c. Know what to do if you lose traction. This is primarily for snow, but also applies to gravel, rain, or any other traction-less condition. This is about learning how to stop in snow, how to keep your composure on ice, and also the basics like "if you start to fishtail, turn into the skid", which is also the basis of drifting. These all need to be learned, especially in a place that snows as much as Utah. Another key point in this is that everyone needs to understand the following principle: AWD/4WD will help you accelerate in the snow, and will usually help with steering, but it does not help you stop any faster!!!

The fact is, small and simple changes are the road to success. Drastic ones that shake-up your life and send it spinning in a short period will get far too much resistance.