Consider that the source of frustration in traffic is the condition that you, the driver, are stuck behind the wheel, having to focus on creeping along. If you didn't have to pay attention, really, to your surroundings and could multitask your trip away, I suppose a driver would be less concerned with a drive taking 5 or 10 extra minutes.

Google's cars are programmed to break the law in a number of scenarios. They will inch into an intersection if they don't sense that another car is going to take advantage of their right of way. They will speed faster than the posted limit if they sense that cars are traveling faster than that limit.

Obeying the law, in some scenarios, particularly when you might force people to make lane changes (which are dangerous in and of themselves) results in greater fatalities. In that situation, it makes sense to break the law.

Manual cars' speedometer "sticks" during an accident, so the police can see the actual speed at the time of impact. Who's responsible when a Google car has an accident while breaking the law?

Likely depends on who signed what, to what extent a manufacturer can deny responsibility, etc. Many people will hire cars rather than own them so it's likely that the taxi service will bear responsibility unless the passenger has meddled.

Depends on where you live and what the local laws are. Where I live (Melbourne, Victoria) most people drive _under_ the speed limit on the highway I take to work each day.

Our local police fine us for doing 2-3km over the limit, and the fines are steep. Most of us here wouldn't notice cars driving at the speed limit.

It's not the local laws, but the enforcement of such laws though.

And as I said, our laws are enforced to a rather strict degree.

That's exactly my issue with drivers. Many of them (most of the ones I know personally) get angry at people driving the way they are supposed to. Apparently the "right" way to drive is to be a total asshole with complete disregard for human life.