Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a normalized basis in the USA? 1 fatality per ~4000-5000 years of driving. 1 injury per ~60-70 years of driving. Can you point to scientifically rigorous evidence, at least reaching the bare minimum of fit for publication, of the absolute level of safety of those systems and where they stand in comparison? How many people am I allowed to kill or injure before I need to run scientific studies on unproven and empiri…
This rebuttal is fine, i guess, but to answer your final question: At least 1645 deaths if your government is british. I forget the US numbers, but globally you can kill upwards of 30,000 people with unproven and empirically fatal technology.
That is not only insane, but empirically false in the USA as people cared very greatly about Cruise injuring people during the development process.
You have to be answering the question: “Assuming we already know for a fact that the technology is safer than a human driver, then, if scaled to all drives, how many can die annually and still be morally justifiable?”
My question is: “How many do I get to kill before I need to figure out if I am killing fewer people?” That is the basic question to be asked during the development process of any unproven dangerous technology to minimize sacrifices to technological dead ends.