To be clear, I'm talking about the "transition period" when both bot and human drivers coexist. I expect this period to be a long one, since we're going to be buying classic cars for at least a decade more, and then the fleet takes a decade or more to age off the road. Even culture is able to change as fast as the car fleet. (Think about how popular Hummers were in 2000.)
Long-term, once the transition is made and infrastructure is redesigned for Type 4 autonomous cars, it will be dangerous for humans to drive.
Autonomous driving is an extremely ripe field for naysayers. It just seems so far-fetched.
But the arc of technology is easily tracked. The medium-term capabilities of autonomous vehicles are easily predictable. Complex ADAS systems are here already. Ray Kurzweil warns us that technology is exponential -- you can't predict the next 10 years by looking at the rate of change in the past 10 years without making vast underestimates.
I know many will disagree with us few, and it in 10 years, you will forget how wrong your forecasts were. But the naysaying is on par with IBM's chief predicting a market for 7 computers in the world. If you just look at your feet, and individual waves, you're never see the tide flow in.
"It will soon become prohibitively expensive to insure the human-driven cars and drivers."
There will be little change in the risk factors, the risk premium, and the risk coverage for human operated vehicles. If anything, it might drop a bit because the robots can practice defensive driving around the humans.
DC officials are so immersed in their NewSpeak language courses from Orwell U, class of '84, that they can no longer understand English.
Patriot Act? A-OK. Free Trade? A-OK. USA Freedom Act? A-OK. "Representatives" in the house? Sure. Money is speech? Of course it is! Corporations are people? Natch! "Hands Off the Internet" means "Hands On the Internet"? Duh!
Stop Hillary? Nope, that may be confused with being pro-Hillary.