wrt 1), I think it's preferable to study each scarce accident very closely to avoid it to happen again (like it happens in the aviation industry) rather than just being scared of the technology and remaining on the status-quo of allowing so many casualties each year because we still allow humans to drive.
It's also one of those scary questions we'd all like a clear answer to before we depend on the technology. However it's exactly the kind of question the courts were invented to answer.
The aviation industry is a fantastic parallel that should be modelled after.
Exactly, once they get these vehicles right accidents will be a pretty rare thing.
Until then it has to be a case of "tough" if you want to sue. The Victorians had the right attitude to future technology and it's something we need to get back to.
No, they had horrible workplace diseases and injuries and a dreadful attitude to health. If your business model includes telling potential litigants to man up, you're not going into space today.
