Unfair? Why should a technology touted as the future be half-measured to something as "50%", as just "good enough"? When you have the human element at play, fau

Unfair? Why should a technology touted as the future be half-measured to something as "50%", as just "good enough"? When you have the human element at play, fault is easy to judge, as is blame easy to lay. When, say, a drunk driver is involved, it's clear what the problem is, and the state can fund enforcement against drunk driving and take other measures to reduce accidents. But with driverless cars, who does the victim and/or the victims family blame? What can the state and law enforcement do when there's nothing to prosecute besides some corporate entity (and possible laws that protect it) and a faulty algorithm or similar? The human element is no longer at play, and instead there's a car manufacture, protected by decades of lobbying, deciding what is safe enough to unleash on the populace. It's pure negligence to release driverless vehicles onto the roads simply because some statistics show it's "50% safer, thus safe enough".