This view will have a negligible effect on the market. You and the dozens like you can still have cars and a lot of other people can use the self driving ubers
Until they don't, because of prohibitive insurance premiums or some accelerated phase-out of HDC bill. That's the blessing and the curse of the technology market: you don't get to keep your old toys if most of the market has moved on.
The rest of society will not accept recklessly controlled death machines around them because some sovereign citizen didn't want a networked car.
You might think that viewpoint is extreme, but that's exactly how it will look when cars have been made completely safe with new technology. You'll be made to take your manual car to private property to use away from other people.
> but that's exactly how it will look when cars have been made completely safe with new technology
"completely safe"
No, they won't be completely safe. They might be safer than the current median driver, they might even be safer than the top 10% driver, but they won't be completely safe.
> The rest of society will not accept recklessly controlled death machines around them because some sovereign citizen didn't want a networked car.
Our "recklessly controlled death machines" are doing pretty good today. In fact, automobile related death rates are down in most Developed nations, sometimes down in raw numbers.
But hyperbole will certainly solve all of our problems.
I'd say it's an important reminder, especially that even here, people still cling to the view that you can "vote with your wallet".
Also, it's more than just having "a negligible effect on the market" - if your preferences diverge too much from the main trend, they'll simply not be met at all. In this context, it means that with large enough self-driving car adoption, you won't get to keep a regular car - they'll eventually stop being sold, but by that time you won't be allowed to legally drive one anyway.
> people still cling to the view that you can "vote with your wallet".
Not only can you, you do. Every dollar you spend is a vote telling the company that you approve of how they do business and should continue doing what they're doing.
But my comment isn't that. My point about not purchasing self-driving cars isn't that I'm trying to influence companies to stop making their cars spying platforms. It's just that such a product is not one that I'm interested in owning.
> you won't get to keep a regular car - they'll eventually stop being sold, but by that time you won't be allowed to legally drive one anyway.
I'll get to keep my regular car for sure. By the time the used car market dries up to the point that getting an old used car isn't a realistic option (or that they're made illegal), I'll have died from old age.
It's the younger crowd that may not have the choice. But they may not care.
Having lived in the boondocks on America, I'm confident it will remain legal to sell and drive regular cars, both for practical and ideological reasons.
It may be that those cars are prohibited in big cities or are prohibitively expensive to insure in a city, but they won't go away entirely.
Well, the conversation is mostly about the impact of new technology on large-scale trends. When someone makes a prediction about how "a lot of people" will react to new technology, it's understandable that a reply of "I won't react like that" could be seen as irrelevant.
Like if someone says "a lot of people will buy the new iPhone" and someone replies "I will never own a cellular phone or even a cordless landline phone" I can understand why that could seem irrelevant to the conversation.
In this case, I was replying to a speculation that a lot of people won't want to own self-driving cars by saying I'm one of those people, and why. My response was on-topic and relevant.
Replies to comments such as mine saying "you don't matter" strike me as interesting because they come off as overly defensive, is all.
If it involves the car having a data link to someone else's server, then I have no interest whatsoever in self-driving vehicles.