No, it doesn't. Self-driving cars are potential substitutes for human-driven cars. If self-driving cars cause fewer injuries/accidents/etc. per mile driven, then everyone will be safer if we replace human-driven cars with them. If you object to self-driving cars being on the road even if they're safer than human-driven cars, you are implicitly saying that your preference is for more people to be injured.
You start with a common, but controversial hypothetical, that in the future self-driving cars may be safer than humans, and then conclude with that opposing self-driving cars today, which of course are not the hypothetical safer than humans car, is advocating for actual humans to be injured or killed.
That’s some real undergrad level bullshit.
That's called the conditional. It means that I'm not saying that thing is true; rather, it means that I am saying that if we take that thing to be true, then something follows logically.
The concept of things being conditional is pretty simple, so I guess in that sense it's undergrad level.