You are conflating two concepts. One is the ability to complete 100% of any ride and react to a kid running into the street, etc. The second is to satisfy 100% of current taxi service like rural areas or dirt roads.

100% safety on 90% of possible trips is a damn good business, let the taxis take the other 10%. That is “autonomous taxis are here.” 90% safety on 100% if possible trips is how you kill people.

Hahaha, also, 100% safety on 90% of trips sounds like the kinda thing Google would do, and 90% safety sounds like the kinda thing Uber would do.

Maybe someone is conflating those things; I'm not.

I agree that doing 90% of possible trips could be a good business. But it's not the same thing as true autonomous taxis. And we don't have any idea what the actual percentage of achievable trips is. 20% would still be a good business if you pick the right 20%, but it's no threat to Lyft.

20% of their market gone in a puff of smoke is no threat to Lyft?

It wouldn't be a puff; it would happen over a significant period, during which their other business would still presumably be growing. And it would give Lyft substantial time to adapt competitively. So no, I don't believe it's a threat.

This is a great point. Not even humans do 100% of possible trips if they aren’t confident drivers, especially in bad conditions.