It has already happened in some way: the overconfident TMAXes that don't think the laws of traffic apply to them.

Exactly the same as now: Common sense, self-protection, and the law.

Currently, people do all they can to avoid incidents, so if I do the things you mention, I will be safe to the extent that the driver sees me and can take evasive action. If what I do is detected too late to avoid a collision (such as crossing an active junction on a red light, or driving into the path of an oncoming car on a motorway) then it doesn't matter whether the driver is human or software if the event is detected too late for any response to be effective. Human or software, you're still reliant on brakes, traction, and structural stability. Those things don't miraculously improve when there's someone with faster reflexes at the wheel.

That's not to say it won't be safer when detection and response time is shorter, but it won't be so much safer as to reward stupidity.

There's been a subset of people who already behave this way for as long as I can recall, and it probably started soon after the invention of the automobile. Automation will greatly facilitate it.

I don't get this whole argument. We needn't be so worried about a few others taking small advantages when the overall state will be better for us.

By the time we have 99% market penetration of automated cars, we'll have had V2X standards for a decade or more. You probably would have a report of every vehicle nearby, but... At that point cars could just interleave at intersections, and the lights can just switch on when a human driven car shows up.

Also you should recognize that right now most of the time people run red lights or stuff like that they don't crash. If they did we wouldn't need red light cameras.

Here in Atlanta, the only rule during rush hour seems to be "What gets me to my destination quickest?" (And that's with us having what I consider fairly law-abiding drivers in comparison to some cities)

That is true now (and obviously more so in the first case), yet people still do it. If it wasn't being done, you could suggest that automation will not change the situation enough for people to start doing it, but as there already are people doing it, then that threshold has already been crossed, and it is implausible that it will not increase in frequency as the risk of doing it is decreased.

One might assume that if the majority of car do not speed, do not make illegal maneuvers, do not drunk drive, and do not get into accidents then law enforcement will severely reduce enforcement.

HA! Who will pay their salaries? They'll likely double-down on enforcement against "old school" drivers.

He's saying pedestrians will take advantage of cars auto-braking for them.

This seems to imply a giant sense of entitlement on the part of automobile passengers. If you want to go fast get in an airplane. Urban areas are shared with others. If a car has to stop every ten yards to accommodate pedestrians, then that implies a certain maximum possible speed, which is fine. "Jaywalking" is as fake a legal concept as "intellectual property".

If you're talking about the justification for governments making those rules in the first place, I could say the same about a rule saying pedestrians can cross in the middle of the street and cars have to yield - both are arbitrary rules, and should be judged based on their public policy outcomes.

The separation of traffic of different speeds has popped up in different countries and for different modes of transportation repeatedly, because the logic of the situation makes it make sense. In this case, a fast car loses a lot if its utility if it's limited by slower traffic that it's sharing the road with. The existence of car-only roads added value, and from the perspective of a society just introducing the technology, if that reduced the space available to pedestrians then so be it.

I think there's a good argument to be made that too much land has been allocated exclusively to motor transport, especially in city centers, but the existence of such dedicated thoroughfares makes total sense.

Otherwise why pay attention to traffic lights and street lanes? Just drive wherever you want - in fact why stop for pedestrians at all? Don't pedestrians have to accommodate cars too?

Projecting our typical pissed-off aggressive auto-commuter attitudes into the future is a mistake, and will come to be seen as a sort of mental illness. Well-adjusted robocar passengers will pay no attention to traffic, just as normal people today don't constantly bother air stewardesses about how long their flight is taking.

With cops freed up on traffic duty, they can start making examples of jaywalkers disrupting automated traffic.

In that world, could one safely run a red light? Sometimes yes, but there are limits even to the highest-performing sensors and servos. An intersection with large buildings on every corner would still be dangerous--radar and lasers can't see through walls or around corners, and even with perfect reaction times and brake control, a car doing 30mph has as a minimum stopping distance that would take it into the intersection.

So, I don't know that people would think that they are invincible. And traffic signals would still be enforced by law.

These are very powerful scooters, almost as fast as motorcycles but they don't require manual speed shifting, making. Usually drivers or those are reckless in cities like Paris

The premise is that self driving cars will and can react defensively. While someone driving home after a long day in the office might not.

So - yes, you can abuse human drivers, today. But the GP seems to think that it's far more risky now and will be ~trivial~ given good enough self driving cars.