This could play out a million times at the population level. If you can decrease the chances of needing justice in the first place, shouldn't that be considered?
If fewer people die, there is no liability to assign.
It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. Which yeah, sounds just like us! "This is the way we've always done it!"
[0] https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
God I hate technocracy. There’s a reason we elect politicians and not technologists who think everything is simple and we just aren’t making the technically correct policy decisions.
“I’m sorry ma’am, we won’t be investigating anyone for your daughter’s death at the hands of the Sexy Deathmobile 5000 because technically no one is liable. But just think, there would have been so many other children killed this year if we didn’t allow these Sexy Deathmobiles to take over the roads! I hear there’s even a software update that will reduce toddler deaths by 5% at the expense of a 10% rise in dog and raccoon deaths, but it’s a choice our technocratic overlords are ecstatic to implement!”
You’re also arguing against a false alternative, which is the status quo. I’d rather have our money put towards safe streets and reducing demand for toddler-bulldozers (cars with raised grills) than a FSD pipe dream that would only enrich a few billionaires and the lucky SWEs who happen to pick the correct company to work for.
Corporations just pay a fine and move on. I don’t want that to be the standard for road accidents and frankly outside of this techie niche no one does.