And your over-enthusiasm for AV doesn't extend to the human factor. We all have our own blinders ;)
>The notion that we are safe because we can read humans is not substantiated by anything.
That is your own misinterpretation. I did not read the comment that way.
>If AV risk is so obvious as you claim then why does the enormous amount of data show that AVs are involved in the less accidents and lead to less fatalities than cars operated by humans on a mile per mile basis?
What you mean when you say AV, is actually "AV + Human". We're running controlled experiments, limiting the unknowns, and we're mandating a human be present - because the current AV technology sucks.
> We can debate the “when” in terms of AVs but debating the “if” seems pretty out of touch with the way society has progressed with respect to our willingness to depend on technology.
People used to say that about flying cars 40 years ago.