Can you expand on that? Why is it that a vehicle being bigger vs smaller is the distinction? I’m one person but I care about some combo of money/time/distance/comfort. If I could get a cheaper ride from say Houston up to the park rather than having to drive it myself the value prop to me is the same—I don’t have to drive. Heck if the seat on the bike was comfortable enough like a laid-back sport seat in a car I might choose the bike at the same price point because it would be more fun (again this assumes I “know” it’s safe).

Sounds like you might enjoy a recumbent bicycle.

For a "bike" to balance you need a certain level of physical/mental engagement. How much value are you really getting from the self driving aspect, even if it were feasible, at that point?

At some point smart-car esque self driving vehicles will likely be possible, but self-driving unenclosed two wheelers? Pointless IMO.

Yeah, you're right, uncle. How about some kind of conveyance that just costs a lot less than a conventional US car? Rhetorical. Not expecting a reply to that.

I don't understand the hostility.

A bike already fits your requirements, self driving would just make it more expensive.

If you want something enclosed, NYC has self-driving (from your perspective) trains and busses.

If you want enclosed and not-shared, I guess you just want a smaller car? Losing wheels wouldn't make it cheaper, IMO, because that makes a bunch of stuff more complicated.