I disagree; I think sandworm nailed an essential issue.<p>At the top of this subthread, Zikes claimed that Google&#x27;s cars are a &quot;proven technology.&quot; Not even Google claims that now, and legality is indeed part of that.<p>Driverless elevators are an example of an actual proven technology. There&#x27;s no human operator standing by to jump on the manual brake in case the automation fails. And if a driverless elevator does fail and causes harm, the elevator&#x27;s manufacturer can be sued for damages.<p>Now, the idea of a &quot;driverless&quot; elevator seems like a silly name for just a regular elevator, but I chose that for a reason. Elevators used to have drivers, and people are already drawing the comparisons to cars:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2015&#x2F;07&#x2F;31&#x2F;427990392&#x2F;remembering-when-driverless-elevators-drew-skepticism" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.npr.org&#x2F;2015&#x2F;07&#x2F;31&#x2F;427990392&#x2F;remembering-when-dri...</a><p>Is Google willing to assume the same type of liability for their self-driving cars? Certainly not right now, so it&#x27;s hard to call their technology fully proven.