I’d rather they consider a proper regulatory regimen.

Systems of fines should be in places for when the AVs cause problems, with escalating penalties for repeat issues.

Just lowering the quantity (or, as some advocate, getting rid of them altogether), won’t incentive them to actually fix the issues.

Half? HALF??!? Are they safe or are they not? This is not about minimizing collateral damage, which is what it should be about; it is about taking a half-hearted stab at preventing a regulatory agency from being made to look bad.

Are bicycles safe or are they not? You could argue that bikes as a whole are categorically unsafe based on fatality statistics alone.

Are airplanes safe or are they not?

Safety is multifaceted concept and hard to reduce to a simple binary.

What is the motivation of the state to allow driverless cars at all? It is bound to create problems, what does it gain them? Serious question.

The state already puts a lot of resources into improving road safety, and that's one of the primary goals of the DMV, DOT, etc. There's reason to believe that driverless cars will greatly improve road safety, so it feels reasonable that the state would allow their development and have a framework for responsibly expanding their use.