[stevesimmons]

So you're volunteering to be an unpredictable pedestrian or cyclist around large numbers of early-stage driverless cars? Put your ethics into practice!

The rationale response for individual cities is to say: "Do your risky testing elsewhere, thank you very much. You may come back here once you are as safe as our average driver."

[spacehome]

I'm already a pedestrian surrounded by unsafe human drivers, and every day I hate what I see. What I'm talking about is making a tradeoff between risk now and risk later such that my total risk is lower. I'd take that tradeoff, and I think it's the ethical thing for society to do. What you're talking about is NIMBY, which certainly makes sense locally -- better for some other locale to perfect the technology -- but on the societal level I think it's wrongheaded. But don't worry; there's no danger anybody will take my stance on it seriously. Autonomous vehicles will not be widely deployed until they're provably drastically better than humans.

[05]

The rational response is to try passing legislation that prevents companies like Uber from (ever?) testing on public roads while allowing responsible companies like Cruise and Waymo a way to prove their competence and be allowed to test/operate.