> I suppose the argument is that while the robot itself might not have run over anyone, it might have caused someone else on the road to do it.
And I repeat, that's a contrived enough scenario that I think you need to come to the table with numbers and evidence if you want to make it. Counting crashes has been The Way Transportation Safety Has Been Done for the better part of a century now and you don't just change methodology midstream because you're afraid of the Robot Overlord in the driver's seat.
Science always has a place at the table. Ludditism does not.
And I repeat, that's a contrived enough scenario that I think you need to come to the table with numbers and evidence if you want to make it. Counting crashes has been The Way Transportation Safety Has Been Done for the better part of a century now and you don't just change methodology midstream because you're afraid of the Robot Overlord in the driver's seat.
Science always has a place at the table. Ludditism does not.