Yes but....but
Nice marketing ploy, but it does obscure the bigger picture:
A truly autonomous, safe and reliable road transport system (that includes private vehicles) will probably look more like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems
To reduce overall fossil-fuel consumption (and the other issues associated with single-ownership vehicles) we would be better off sharing Teslas, not buying more of them. The 3 billion people who will eventually want to purchase cars in places like Mumbai, Beijing and Africa are not going to help.
Believe me, I love the tech. Self driving cars are an extremely cool idea. However, I would prefer to focus on things that actually do reduce the cost of moving people around:
Better public transport
Simplified inexpensive, ride and car sharing.
Smarter city grids that don't make 20 mph horse rides a better or equally good performance option to rush hour traffic
More telecommuting, staggered work hours, more walkable and sustainable communities
From an engineering standpoint, I don't see how automated control and collision detection road systems can work much better than the Airbus. And the world's roads do not have centralized ATC systems, universal aircraft identification standards or stringent requirements for pilot training hours. There are many reasons why air travel is statistically safer than road travel.
So wouldn't it be better to design and implement the infrastructure needed for driver less cars first? Which would not be a trivial undertaking.
There is a slight whiff of hubris here on the part of Tesla. As accidents multiply and more guinea pigs die, widespread rejection of the whole concept is still possible.
Controlled environments have produced excellent results for driver-less or semi-autonomous cars. And yet, I am still not keen on sharing a dark, rain-slicked country road with them and other meatbag drivers, at least not with the current stage of evolution and existing road infrastructure.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
