> Still, it is and always has been completely and totally insane to test these heavy fast robots on public streets Another comment pointed out that Google did

> Still, it is and always has been completely and totally insane to test these heavy fast robots on public streets Another comment pointed out that Google did roll out in an extremely safe way, but to this point: do you still consider this to be the testing phase? You might call it that but if we're at a point where "they are, as this article points out, already safer than human drivers" (and in particular, nearly 2^3 times better in some cases) that would suggest that the fundamental concept of the vehicles no longer need testing. It's simply not possible to develop autonomous vehicles completely in simulated environments. There's two kinds of testing: 1. Testing that the car behaves appropriately such that it's suitable for public use. This is the phase where you're not sure that it's safe. 2. Iteratively improving the vehicle after it's been deemed safe. This is where you're rolling out changes that you believe will improve safety and comfort on an existing safe product. Google already did #1. They did it for over a decade. If you believe that #1 and #2 are not two separate phases, then if #1 can't be evaluated with real human drivers you can't ever get to a place where you deem the vehicles safe. There's no threshold where you can confidently say the cars will behave well because you've never put them in front of real, unpaid humans on real, non-simulated roads. How could you call them safe in good conscience if you've never tested them outside of a test environment? How do you know you've controlled every last variable? You simply don't and can't.