If driverless cars completely replaced humans, then you would not need many of the rules, road signs, traffic lights, and so on. Car-to-car communication combined with mesh-sensor network would probably take care of most of these.
Cyclists shouldn't be on the road in the first place. They're a non-powered vehicle and as such are pedestrians same as someone on a skateboard. They either need to be on sidewalks, or have their own separate paths (that are physically separate from roads which are for powered vehicles only). As for non-driverless cars (driven cars?) that's a more complicated problem, but as they become increasingly less common they should eventually get their own dedicated lanes to keep them out of the way of the driverless cars. Eventually we'll likely see a bifurcated system where driverless cars operate at much higher speeds that they can safely do (say 100+ mph in some areas), while manually driven cars are restricted to speeds more appropriate for human reflexes and awareness, say something averaging about 50 mph with some sections getting up to 80 mph or so.
Having separated, convenient pathways for every mode of transportation sounds like a nice utopia, but we struggle to build that kind of infrastructure today.
Until that utopia exists, bikes have to ride somewhere, and that's the road. Sidewalks are (typically) far more dangerous for cyclists due to short sightlines out of driveways and alleys. And driverless cars need to be able to recognize cyclists anyway.
> Eventually we'll likely see a bifurcated system where driverless cars operate at much higher speeds that they can safely do (say 100+ mph in some areas)
I agree that bicycles probably shouldn't ride in traffic on the freeways, although often they are allowed to ride on the shoulder of freeways today (at least in rural areas).
It's not that crazy an idea. High-end bicycles already have electrical components (e.g. gear shifting) and electric-assist bikes are becoming much more common. Automatic steering/braking/etc. would take a lot of stress out of my commute.
You can have a useable bike for a hundred Euro or so. It will be a long time, if ever, that we self-driving technology becomes cheap enough and small enough to compete. If you want a small, self-driving vehicle, you might as well put four wheels and a roof on it. Cars don't have to weigh a literal ton.
> You can have a useable bike for a hundred Euro or so.
Sure; you can buy a usable car much cheaper than current flagship models too. I spent over 4k on my bike; the high-end market does exist (and is currently the only place you'll find electric shifting, but all these technologies gradually work their way down).
> If you want a small, self-driving vehicle, you might as well put four wheels and a roof on it. Cars don't have to weigh a literal ton.
A motor and batteries or fuel tank are always going to be pretty heavy though, much heavier than sensors and processors. In any case, I like the exercise and the visibility/openness. I'd expect self-driving scooters/mopeds before self-driving bikes, sure, but I'd expect them to happen eventually.
"Completely" is never happening, or is so far in the future to be pointless to speculate about (especially for bicycles). The foreseeable future will involve a blend of automatic and manual pilots.
Sure, this is going to be the case for long time. But it is still not hard to see many of the road rules chaging/evolving, and many rules becoming obsolete.
