This is a bad faith comparison not using apples to apples. Humans drive in all sorts of conditions that self driving cars flat out don't, and this data doesn't control for that at all.
that's exactly why they are not allowed in all sorts of conditions! Where did this all-or-nothing demand come from? If a self-driving car shows less accidents than humans in Phoenix, why would you apply numbers from e.g. Montana, how is that apples-to-apples? and if it's shown safe in Phoenix conditions, why not let it run in Phoenix, just like the current approach?
Second, then use only data about human drivers in perfect situations to compare. Their accident rates also go down.
The humans five times worse in that data. That is a very large gap. Even after adjusting for driving conditions, with a gap that large, self-driving cars are likely safer.
Also, don't assume a comparison is made in bad faith, just because it has flaws.
So to be clear, this is not a "flaw". This is a catastrophic, wrong from the get go, not mentioned and no effort made to control for, failure.
Deliberately misrepresenting data, or in the most charitable case, by sheer mass incompetence, when it involves the safety of people is never ok.