But that's the whole point: driverless = dependent on the type of vehicle used! I will also put this in Github, but I go into this here anyway (for the record). Look, AV developers can’t control traffic, the weather, nor legislation. What they CAN control, is the vehicle itself. Wouldn’t you say that: -A- the smaller the vehicle, the more margin there is to maneuver, evade other road users? -B- a vehicle can be formatted in such a way that it has more built-in safety for all involved to begin with? Yes. ALL AV developers use the types of vehicles (SUVs and MPVs) that are inherently more dangerous to vulnerable road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians. IMO, our best bet will be assisted mode in and around cities (built environment) and SAE Level 4 driverless out on the open road with low-density, (fore)seeable traffic. For instance, between LA and Las Vegas. I know that Toyota has often vented its doubts about the feasibility of SAE Level 5 any time soon.

Below: some vehicle shapes (rounded and sloping contours dramatically reduce blind spots) are a better fit for A D S than other, and the human driver as more attentive backup. The picture should also make clear that making a car driverless and making it eco-friendly (less kWh needed) are two sides to the same highly coveted medal in auto-mobility. There’s a good chance that my vehicle concept will be developed (prototyping) in the coming year. Cheers, Ralph @NextGenEV

Below: new technology tends to influence product ‘format’ — smartphone is a great example. Add to the need to ‘reformat the car’ the persistent problems we all experience (invasiveness living environment, congestion, safety other road users, etc.) which are still not (sufficiently) tackled.