Why?
NHTSA reports 1.15 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled in 2015.
Waymo advertises >5 million road miles travelled. Let's say Waymo + Uber have driven 10 million vehicle miles and killed 1 person. That makes them 10 times more dangerous than human driven cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
2 deaths in over 2 billion miles is roughly 10 times safer than human drivers.
[1] https://electrek.co/2016/11/13/tesla-autopilot-billion-miles...
That might be a fair question, except that one death at this early stage of limited realistic trials makes me doubt the correctness of your belief. On the statistics that we have right now, I'm not seeing how autonomous cars are safer.
>Self driving cars aren't going to be perfect.
Shouldn't self-driving cars be held to a better standard rather than compared generously to objectively terrible existing standards? That we think of pedestrians regularly killed in "accidents" as acceptable collateral is already pretty horrific.
Arizona has something similar:
> By legal definition, there are three or more crosswalks at every intersection whether marked or unmarked.
Source: ADOT Traffic Engineering Guidelines and Processes, Section 910.1
Today you can cross in the middle of the street and take a calculated risk that the people approaching down the street will stop or slow down enough to not kill you. If they go ahead and kill you anyway, they'll still be prosecuted because their attention should be on the road, and the most basic assumption behind their driver's license is that this person is competent enough and fit enough to drive what amounts to a deadly weapon without killing the people around them. When you violate that assumption, the fault is probably on you. Obviously there are exceptions, such as when somebody intentionally jumps in front of your vehicle, but crossing outside of the crosswalk to get across the street is not even close to the same level as trying to commit suicide and fault will be found accordingly.
But yeah. We all agree it's not cool to run down pedestrians or bikers or pedestrians walking bikes etc. no matter where they may be.
If you require 100% impossibility of killing anybody regardless of what the vehicle and the person is doing - it is achievable only by making those vehicles nearly useless - such as lowering their max speed to something 10 mph (maybe even lower since it's still possible to push a person who will slip, hit their head on the pavement and die). If the vehicle is moving fast and somebody jumps onto a street, there are physical limitation of what can be done. So, if this technology is to exist there will always be a space where accidents can - and eventually will - happen.
How about we test it properly before allowing it on public roads?
Assuming Arizona hasn't produced law specifically for fatalities in their public road self driving test program... The algorithms are just one detail of the total system design, and the design of the system isn't really the issue. People don't get killed by designs or code.
The verification of it's safety, and the decision to deploy that system on uncontrolled public streets will be the issue. People made these decisions, not an algorithm.