>For example, imagine that Waymo is (somehow) far far far superhuman in it's ability to avoid other cars doing dumb/bad things. It has a dramatic reduction in overall accidents because it magically can completely get rid of accidents where the other driver is at fault. But, in some very specific circumstances, it can't figure out the proper rate to slow down at intersections, and it consistently rear ends vehicles in front of it. This specific situation is very rare, so overall accidents still are low (much lower than human drivers), but, in our made up, constructed (and extremely non-sensical) hypothetical, nearly 100% of Waymo accidents are Waymos fault.
My understanding is that the reverse is basically what happens in reality. Humans can sense that Waymo cars are "sus" and give them a wide berth so their "lawful to the point of violating the expectations of other drivers" behavior mostly doesn't cause problems, but when it does the other guy pays.
My understanding is that the reverse is basically what happens in reality. Humans can sense that Waymo cars are "sus" and give them a wide berth so their "lawful to the point of violating the expectations of other drivers" behavior mostly doesn't cause problems, but when it does the other guy pays.