I was tempted to place the title of this thing in the imperative, but I didn't want to be pushy. More than that, doing so would serve mostly as a cheap provocation to arouse the ire of a friend of mine who contends that Americans, indefinitely, will refuse to cede control of their vehicles to computers, sensors, and robots. Something in the American Spirit, he says, will successfully dismantle the widespread adoption of technology that would drastically reduce loss of both life and wealth. (I know car buffs will lament loudly, and you must know, for the sake of openness, that I'm disinclined to give that reality priority over more important considerations. Sorry, car buff friends.)
I'm not so sure. Besides supporting automated driving and all it might one day offer—really, continuing to allow humans to pilot automobiles would be insane in a society with a viable alternative—I'm inclined to think a driverless society is a foregone conclusion, whether by law or choice, though I hope the latter prevails. Provided cheap, efficient, and reliable technology, I see no logical reason (though I can think of a few illogical ones) that Americans as drivers would forcefully oppose a transition away from self-piloted vehicles. (My argument here, it should be said, assumes a technology that meets those conditions.) The upside is simply too great; just as many folks at first rejected the automobile, eventually the advantages it provided made previous technologies obsolete. The same, I think, will be true for automated cars.
Wired has an interesting piece regarding the myriad legal questions we will need to grapple with, and I have no doubt that there will be a number of growing pains as we struggle to adapt to the shift. But safety and economic considerations will, after a time, decide the matter. One day, the excuses will simply run out.