Upside: you get paid a 200k salary, if all your code works perfectly. Downside: if it doesn't, you go to prison.
The users aren't compelled to use it. They can choose not to. They get to choose their own risks.
The internet is a gold mine of creatively moronic opinions.
Civil engineer kills someone with a bad building, jail. Surgeon removes the wrong lung, jail. Computer programmer kills someone, “oh well it’s your own fault”.
The only case where a computer programmer "kills someone" is where he hacks into a system and interferes with it in a way that foreseeably leads to someone's death.
Otherwise, the user voluntarily assumed the risk.
Frankly if someone lets a computer drive their car, given their own ample experiences of computers "crashing", it's basically a form of attempted suicide.
Most code has bugs from time to time even when highly skilled developers are being careful. None of them would drive if the fault rate was similar and the outcome was death.
The only practical way around this which permits autonomous vehicles (which are apparently dependent on much more complex and intractable codebases than, say, avionics) is a much higher threshold of criminal responsibility than the "the serious consequences resulted from the one-off execution of an dangerous manoeuvre which couldn't be justified in context" which sends human drivers to jail. And of course that double standard will be problematic if "willingness to accept liability" is the only safety threshold.
And also, of course some people would take that deal, and of course some others wouldn't. Your argument is moot.