Used to suffer horribly from carsickness as a kid. The tricks mentioned do work, like look deliberately out the front window rather than side or rear ones, don't read or play games, lie down if possible, sip ice water.

Since growing up and being able to describe to someone how to drive to prevent passenger carsickness, there are different tricks. Mostly, no accelerating hard into straightaways and then braking hard before or during turns. Take the front-back acceleration out of it and the side-to-side acceleration of going around a turn fast can actually be fun.

Self-driving cars ought to be particularly good at implementing such an algorithm. They don't get frustrated by curves "slowing them down" and don't feel compelled to make up for it by jamming the gas at every opportunity. They don't ride the bumper of everyone in front to "push them along", only to brake hard every time the slow driver does. They know the optimal line through every curve and don't brake halfway through an underestimated turn.

These driving style modifications amount to a low pass filter on acceleration. It wouldn't apply at highway entrances or emergency maneuvers. Elsewhere it might enable reading in the car for people who normally couldn't tolerate it. Underpowered cars like the Prius get this feature for free even with a human driver.

I read this story and thought it sounded like there was little in it. There is something not quite right surveying people who have never been in a driverless car and extrapolating their car sickness history and then applying it to driverless cars. A far better study would be to actually use two control groups as passengers and use real driverless cars and cars with a driver.(Assuming driverless cars could be made available)

There was also no mention of peoples ability to adapt. As someone who used to easily get seasickness, I persevered when I joined a volunteer marine rescue unit and now rarely have problems. Could the same adaptations apply to car travel with your head looking down at a tablet?

I note that the two authors of this study, Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak of the research group "Sustainable Worldwide Transportation" under UMTIR of Michigan University did another study about a month ago that received a similar level of press coverage. It was reported in Bloomberg Business and elsewhere under the title "Dirty Downside to Driverless Cars Revealed in Study" This study suggested that "Bloomberg... They'll consume more energy than cars with drivers".

It is good to have people doing this research. As the UMTIR is dedicated to improving safety and saving lives, and one of the arguments in favour of driverless cars is the millions of lives they possibly may save, we need sort out the issues facing driverless cars as soon as possible. We need Goldilocks timing, take the time to get the safety right but not too long that the current mass death of road users is extended unnecessarily.

I'd like to see comparison studies of motion sickness in trains and busses (and airplanes as well, I guess, though they're not as directly comparable).

I would guess that incidences of motion sickness on trains, busses, and planes are greatly reduced compared to cars.

I still contend that the ideal combination for long distances that are just under the threshold where taking a flight is best would be driverless cars for the first- and last-mile and then high-speed trains for the long haul in the middle. The mode changes are mitigated by the higher speed of the train making the total journey time shorter. Plus you can stand up and move about on a train while it's moving, which is much healthier than sitting in a single seat in a car for hours; and there are onboard restrooms and snack bars. While a car can pull off to the side of the road at a rest stop so you can get out, walk around, use the restroom, get food, etc., this is roughly equivalent to a mode change. So any car journey long enough for two or more rest stops decidedly loses out to a high-speed train with two mode changes and first- and last-mile door-to-door cars at the ends. Any arguments about mode changes interrupting your work/reading/video viewing in a driverless car can just as easily be made about using rest stops.

I'd also be interested in studies about the percentages of passenger miles traveled on longer trips that are taken by solo travelers or couples versus groups of three or more. For groups of three or more there's a bit more incentive to taking a car versus a train or plane, due to the increased efficiency of the use of the vehicle, social/seating aspects, reduced hassles with luggage, etc. There could be a happy medium, where solo travelers and pairs are inclined towards high-speed trains, reducing the total number of cars on the road, which would make the journeys for larger groups in cars actually more pleasant due to the reduced traffic!

Also interesting is this recent article:

7 Cities That Are Starting To Go Car-Free
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3040634/7-cities-that-are-starting-to-go-car-free

So with some cities discouraging car usage and making it easier to get around without needing a car at all, the incentive of having your own vehicle with you at either end when you're traveling between cities is greatly reduced.