Science has a funny way of getting us excited about the future, without necessarily acknowledging the realities of what it has in mind for the 21st century. This assertion is borne out by the breathless claims made for the “driverless car”.

If Google or some of its rivals have their way, we’ll all be travelling the motorways, sitting back to front, reading newspapers or playing with our phones as our ultra-safe vehicles tick along towards their destination.

Electronics will keep us safe. Each car will know to keep a required distance behind the one in front. A computerised voice will inform us on progress and time of arrival. Where once there was chaos, we shall be traversing the land in comfort and safety as someone – or something – else “takes the strain”.

In some ways, it might seem to resemble that previous great breakthrough, the train. But to point this out would seem negative and pedantic. Google and other technology leaders are pressing hard on the initiative. The company has permission to test its prototypes on parts of the California road system. It has earned seemingly endless media coverage worldwide.

But will the driverless car – also known as the self-driving, uncrewed, or robotic vehicle – really be popular, beyond the interest of wealthy geeks of Silicon Valley? Can drivers really be weaned from the power of being “behind the wheel”? Some male drivers see their driving skills as a measure of their very manhood.

Increasingly they are joined by women drivers, some more aggressive behind the wheel as they earn greater workplace equality. Might those car users be convinced that it is better to be hands-off, that the roads might be safer and it might even be cheaper and better to let cars drive themselves, getting the world from A to B and back again and all at uniform pace?

Where is the human prestige within a procession of driverless cars gliding to their destination? What if some want to move at 70 miles per hour while others might rather prefer a stately 25mph? Driverless cars present man (and woman) with a modern dilemma: we know they might be good for us, but do we actually want them?

Here might be the solution for Google and its would-be fellow car developers: introduce human traits to driverless cars that will enable us to cope with such radical change. In such times, we cling to the familiar. It makes us feel, well, “safe”.

So we might see programmed rogue cars dashing up the outside lane towards the road cones (we will still have cones on driverless roads, won’t we?), before flashing their headlights and squeezing in between others who have patiently moved into the single lane.

Every 100th driverless car (OK, every 10th) might move without indicating, swerve across the road to park facing the wrong way or stop dead before attempting a right turn without signalling.

The computerised voice could be programmed to add a few choice expletives. Perhaps a fake hand could make rude gestures from a front window. Then Google, or someone, might just paint a future we can all recognise and welcome.