Presumably the economic incentives are much greater for trucking than for consumers (as is typically the case). If we can accept that, then investors shouldn't be swayed by regulatory questions (regulations change easily when wealthy investors and corporations want them to change) nor by some marginal upfront insurance cost (the hypothesis is that driverless trucks will be much less fallible and thus insurance costs will go down quickly as driverless tech proves itself).
The interestion questions are "is the 'greater economic incentive for trucking' assumption correct in the first place" and if so, why were we still bothering with consumer automotive in the first place?
The interestion questions are "is the 'greater economic incentive for trucking' assumption correct in the first place" and if so, why were we still bothering with consumer automotive in the first place?