This is the crux of the argument. However, it falls flat when you consider that many other simple "can reduce that number" measures have not been adopted – like fitting speed governors to cars limiting them to some speed limit, putting tracking beacons in cars to making them automatically stop at red lights, or putting in devices in cars to limit drunk driving.
I don't see a reason why a much more complicated technology should leapfrog these simpler ones and be put into production so quickly, potentially risking innocent lives in the process. In fact, I believe the reason why it is being rushed so quickly is arguments like yours coupled with a low understanding of the technology involved. People are viscerally more willing to accept the idea that an "artificial intelligence" is going to drive the car, rather than the idea that their car is a multi-ton hunk of metal that needs to be limited and monitored carefully.
> I honestly think the biggest issue is probably the legal a s regulatory overhead of responding to the technology rather than the technology itself, but since it’s so hard to quantify I don’t often bring this up. But the biggest passion I have seen if from those same engineering minds, who truly understand the complexity, but also want to see it happen. Their timeframes are just long. I’ve heard 2045 and 2050.
Those timeframes seem normal to me. Rollout dates should not be decided by the whims of corporate shareholders. Let's put simple speed limiters on cars first, everyone can understand that technology – and see how that goes!