[brianmcconnell]

Safety sells. Let's say it's 2025. You can buy a Tesla Model Z, or GM's latest sedan for about 30 grand. In addition to the E-MPG rating, there's also a new sticker for deaths and injuries per mile driven. The Tesla auto-drive enabled car has a death rate one tenth that of the GM car. Which one is your spouse going to insist that you buy?

I personally like to drive, especially on road trips, but I like the idea of a car that has much better reaction time that can correct if I do something stupid, or it sees something I can't (via vehicle to vehicle reporting).

Speaking of which, there will be many many opportunities to reduce impact severity. Example: a vehicle pulls out in front of you unexpectedly. If the car can react instantly where you'd take a fraction of a second, it can shed enough speed to reduce the severity of impact significantly (if not avoid it altogether). Reducing speed by 25%, will reduce the impact energy by almost half, so even small improvements will result in big differences in injuries and fatalities.

[ams6110]

What if the GM has a better rating? Will you find some reason that it's wrong, or didn't account for X, Y, and Z, to rationalize your desire to buy the Tesla regardless?

[JoeAltmaier]

SO driver-assisted cars will be popular. No reason why it has to go all the way to self-driving. And 10 years of driver-assist gradually taking over more functions will help reduce FUD to the point we'll all find ourselves thinking about driving the way we feel about horses and dial telephones.