The Instigator
Pro (for)
21 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Are driverless cars trustable on roads?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 63588
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




The technology behind driverless cars is rapidly becoming more and more prevalent. Google, Audi, and countless other companies are all nearing completion of their own models in a scientific arms race. Many people are concerned that without drivers, cars would be unpredictable, and since they are susceptible to hacking, malfunctions, etc., this would pose a major threat to other cars on the road.

However, I do not view this as a legitimate issue. I would like to remind everyone that at the moment, drivers are susceptible to drugs, alcohol, mistakes, road rage, poor vision, and their vehicles can still be affected by malfunctions, even if there is a human driver.

As such, if anything, I personally see it being that driverless cars would in fact make the roads safer, as they would be capable of providing reliable safe driving, would move at appropriate speeds such that there is no pointless slow downs, and allow who would've been the driver to do work or even just enjoy the scenery of their trip.


I do not agree with my opponent because driver less cars are subdued to many malfunctions. there are many ways that these cars could go wrong. there would have to be billions of dollars but into this invention to make it safer and more efficient. which i infact i do not think that these companies have the money for.
Debate Round No. 1


While I understand the points of my opponent, I feel like they are not issues I had already addressed within my initial statement. However, to further prove the validity of those claims, I have chosen to bring sources.
This first source is wikipedia, which may be deemed as incredible, but I have chosen to use it because it provides many general details rather accurately, and can give a good overview of the subject. Now as presented in the article, the vehicles are already constructed, and continue to be modified, improved, and worked upon at all times. While there have been 2 accidents reported, both were stated to be faults of human operators (one of a human taking manual control of the car, and the other where a human operated car rear-ended the google car). As such, the basis of finance is not a valid dispute, due to the fact of the vehicles already built being true.
Now I have not personally read this article, but I feel as it will most likely illustrate the point I'm making here, if through nothing but the title alone. As it stands, I have only talked about the google car. While it is incredible, other companies are doing the same thing, creating an effective scientific technology race. But not only is there a high-speed, high-incentive, high-reward system in place for companies to make the best possible automatic system, governments are beginning to legalize these vehicles on the roads. This means that even the governments are willing to believe in the efficiency and reliability of the driverless cars.


"This first source is wikipidea, which may be deemed as incredible"
Wikipedia is first off a very incredible site to get information from. Many people can put their opinions and write what they want on it so i do not think that you or I should get any information off of it.
You say the two google cars were in accidents because of two human drivers. Yes both of these were the peoples fault you and I both cant just think that when these driverless cars do come about that everyone is going to buy one because they are going to cost thousands of dollars that a lot of people don't have. So there are going to be a lot of accidents and it may be the humans fault or it may be the driverless cars fault.
Debate Round No. 2


While you are more or less correct about the wikipedia point, that is not entirely true. It is well known that they have an extensive team of editors who monitor updates to articles and are there as an assurance of quality. In addition, the second anyone on the wikipedia community finds the article may be slightly biased, lacking sources, they have the ability to report it and it will appear in a massive box above the article until thoroughly reviewed by an editor, something this article was lacking. In addition, any people found to be tampering with the website have their revisions removed and are quite often IP banned from the database. That is why, for example, you can search up Vikings on wikipedia and it will not simply be in big letters "I LIKE PIE" (I was in grade 3, I acknowledge my childhood flaws.)

But, as I previously stated, the purpose of that article was not for any engineering statistics or specifics such as that, but rather for the general idea that the cars do exist, something that you cannot deny simply on the basis that wikipedia is not an oxford document.

Continuing on to your point, once again, it fails to have any real merit to it. You agree that the two faults were human, and that when these cars come out, most people will not have them and continue to be in crashes. But that does in no way affect the reliability of the vehicles. In fact, if anything, it proves the almost need for them in our society.

In conclusion, I fail to see any relevant points brought forth by the opposition, as any and all claims have been either factually or logically disproven. On the other hand, my points of the technology creating a safer environment on the roads has not only remained standing, but even been somewhat supported by side opposition.


all though my opponent has made some very good points I still believe that most of these cars that have come out like the Hyundai genesis, have still gotten into car acciendents caused by the driver thinking that its car can drive itself.

I have no further points.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
All that needs to happen for chaos is a computer gliche.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's main point was that it reduces accidents caused by human error, which Con failed to rebut. Con's points were not as strong as Pro's.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments that were good. Instead of refuting pro's claim, con criticized the source. Wikipedia is reliable and there are references at the end of the article. Even if con didn't like pro's sources, con could have made only a small point about it and moved on. Not doing so makes me choose pro. I have nor did I have any biased about this debate. I simply have not done my research on the topic. Just saying to point out that I am unbiased here. I hope con takes my criticisms well.
Vote Placed by cool.dude 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Because it replaces human error