I thought that was why they were developing these little driverless trolleys - to go in front of the driverless cars and warn people of their approach.
All the objections seem to me to ignore the fact that driverless cars are basically rolling surveillance machines. They have to be, to navigate. They are going to have inside and outside cameras and sensors, and people are going to have to pay to use them with non-anonymised accounts. Sure, throw up in your self-driving taxi. Expect a large bill for cleaning and loss of opportunity. Sure, steal a credit card. The facial recognition software will alert the police that the person with the card is not the owner. And the sanction is that if you rack up enough bad points you will lose the ability to use them. You’ll be a bus and foot passenger.
The surveillance state does have some potential benefits, as well as very big downsides. You can argue that the downsides outweigh the benefits. But the fact remains that every year the roads get more congested, parking becomes more of a problem, and the number of people who text while driving, kill or seriously injure other people, and generally make driving unpleasant diminishes, if at all, very slowly. At the same time the number of older people who have trouble driving increases. The sheer potential economic and social benefit of self driving cars is as big as the benefits of railways in the 19th century - it’s individualised public transport. There were many problems with early railways. They were overcome.