I dojn't think that chart represents anything informative. It's at least partly based on "social media reports" and they say it's "incomplete". Any number of alternative explanations for that chart (which isn't a "skyrocket") explain the results better, such as increased awareness of the cars, increased numbers of miles driven (so the complaint rate per mile is roughly constant), and negative press coverage of incidents.
so the complaint rate per mile is roughly constant
Sure, if the complaint rate per mile is constant, but the number of driverless cars increases exponentially, then yeah we might expect the number of complaints to increase exponentially. That doesn't mean this isn't a problem.
they say it's "incomplete"
Okay, so maybe there are more problems than are represented in the chart, but that doesn't seem to paint any prettier of a picture here.
> The companies point out that, in a city that sees dozens of traffic deaths caused by human-driven cars each year, their driverless taxis have never killed or seriously injured anyone in the millions of miles they’ve traveled.
So, by your logic, the public policy we should be looking at is reducing human diven car miles to a minimum.
If you ignore the rate at which the events are occuring and don't bother to collect any data on the relative rates of other things like standard taxis and delivery vehicles, then your "data" is worthless from a public policy perspective.
If self-driving cars are really safer than human drivers, then tech companies need to prove it by releasing more data than necessary, rather than less. Why won't they release sufficient data instead of forcing the city to gather their own data? This doesn't smell well...
