[curryst]

I'm certain the colloquial use will remain, but "doesn't require a driver" should really be the one to get it's own name. Fully Autonomous Vehicle or Driverless Autonomous Vehicle.

"Self-driving car" is just woefully inadequate to describe the capabilities it encompasses. A century old Model T with a brick on the accelerator could be accurately described as a "self-driving car". It's not very good at driving, but neither are drunk people and we still say that they're driving.

Likewise, I would argue that a car that can maintain speed and steer itself to stay in it's lane is conceptually closer to a "self-driving car" than it is a "fully manual car".

> Cars shouldn't be allowed to be marketed self-driving, or autonomous, etc., until a driver isn't required.

That's going to be a licensing thing. Frankly it probably is time for the government to step in and create some kind of licensing for cars that indicates they're fully autonomous. Even if they aren't going to issue any at the moment, it would be good to set the direction that only cars with whatever government seal are actually able to operate without a driver. Then it'd be a little harder for companies to play word games.