Saying that it's better than a human driver is not adequate. I think as a a society we (begrudgingly) make allowances for human error. There is zero solace for a death at the hands of an algorithm.
There is zero solace for a death caused by senseless drivers either. With machines and algorithms you can at least hope they would improve in the future. Humans won't. There will always be a small % of terrible ones.
Imo we should allow (and then enforce) self driving even if machines are still worse than humans (they aren't) because that's the only path we have and the sooner we start walking it the better.
As I said this is still a subject of research. This statement has a source of 'trust me bro'.
> Imo we should allow (and then enforce) self driving even if machines are still worse than humans
How about we do that after a drastic reduction of car use? How about we do that after car manufacturers start taking responsibility about road deaths caused by their 'self-driving' software, and hardware corner cuts?
I am all for that. Add to that actual enforcement and making reckless driving criminal offence so we can catch the terrible drivers before they kill anyone. That won't happen though because politics. Self-driving just might.
Otherwise they would have the appropriate insurance, like any company that trades in any dangerous business.
As far as I'm aware, virtually every state with an AV pilot program requires insurance (either commercial or self-insured, as typical for commercial vehicles) in order to be permitted. Several major markets (e.g. California) also require an additional bond to cover issues and have a gradual expansion process to better understand unknown risks.