The solution is recognizing that we are nowhere near ready for driverless cars. With "ordinary" software, you can look at all of the use cases and if you solve 5% of them in a really good way, you can be successful, users will self-select whether those 5% of the use cases are valuable for them, and then not use your software for anything else.

With driverless self-driving vehicles, you have no such comfort. Even if your software correctly handles 99.9% of the use cases, the remaining .1% will get someone injured or killed, and people climbing into taxis cannot self-select whether their route will pass by a fire, in which case "take a cab with a human driver."

Driverless cars have a huge moral hazard here. Their incentives are all around serving their passengers, but the downsides are offloaded onto pedestrians, cyclists, other automobile users, and now firefighters and the citizens they are protecting.

No "solution" should "beg the question" by taking it as axiomatic that driverless cars at the current level of capability are necessary. They are not.

We are not curing cancer or feeding the world here, we are trying to make people get rich by eliminating the cost of labour for a human driver. No way this calculus should prioritize investors over human lives in any sane society.