Pete Owens wrote:So to a certain extent that supports the position of minimising the transition period.
Thanks, yes. To me, the "minimze the transition period" argument is one that we might choose to deploy after
AVs have been around long enough that we are confident it's the right thing to do. So the period might well be minimized by bringing forward its end date, but probably not by delaying its start date.
What I can't understand is worrying about the transition period itself. Every vehicle that is removed from the control of a slightly evolved chimp will represent an incremental improvement to our safety.
I can conceive of an argument that there would be confusion in a cyclist's mind about how a car is going to behave depending on whether it's an AV or not. But it seems weak to me, and I do think the "gradually safer" scenario is more likely.
 - And that might even turn out to be unnecessary. If AVs were a roaring success, but in 2050 still 1% of miles were being driven by humans, there would be a great deal of focus on those human miles. There would perhaps be zero tolerance for driving while distracted / tired / not an expert. It might turn out that human driving had thus also become a roaring success. Human driving might not end altogether until 2100, resulting perhaps in an 80 year "transition period"! (Obviously these numbers are purely illustrative.)
N.B. So I actually think the actual term "transition period" gives the wrong impression; as per my post at the start of this discussion.