The short version of why I think he’s wrong is that:
a) I think government will grant blanket immunity from prosecution/lawsuits once the tech proves overall safer than human drivers, and
b) for the foreseeable future there’ll be a requirement for a human ready to take over. That avoids the “software that breaks the law” issue.
There are several places where driverless technology is going to be very well-tested before it ever becomes very commonplace on public roads.
1. Mines - lots of underground and above-ground roads hauling lots of materials; especially in dangerous places
2. Construction sites - lots of paths & roads to go through; especially in dangerous places
3. Warehouses - some of them are becoming massive villages with their hundreds of rows, thousands of shelves, and its a nightmare to manage without good automation
4. Combat zone - who is the squad leader or platoon leader going to send in first to check out a dangerous place? Some kid whose mama might get a flag for that heroic decision? It makes better sense to send in the driverless humvee first.
5. Industrial worksites - besides mines & construction sites there are plenty of places like power plants, electrical grid stations, cargo loading/unloading sites (i.e. harbors, airports, trains, etc), etc. where there are paths/roads where safety issues abound for humans that make better sense to have driverless vehicles.
In fact the usage of driverless vehicles has been well underway for a long time and its definitely not going to go away EVER as long as there is any modern industrial activity in the world. I agree that there are plenty of human factors involved that will slow down the public implementation of driverless vehicles. But it’s going to happen so please be realistic.
I agree. I also think there will be roads that only allow driverless cars because the rules will be different. E.g.no traffic lights at intersections.