Google already does this. The cars have virtually driven nearly as many miles as they have on the road by now. And every time there's a near accident, or one of

Google already does this. The cars have virtually driven nearly as many miles as they have on the road by now. And every time there's a near accident, or one of the various accidents where other vehicles were at fault, they feed in the data and run simulations on how the car could have avoided the accident. Even if they're not perfect, they're still already better than the median driver in the majority of daily driving. They don't need to be perfect, just better than most and you're drastically reducing deaths. Below median drivers cause more accidents than above median. Most accidents come down to awareness and reaction (both reaction speed and the ability to evaluate the right course of action). These are two things that a sufficiently advanced computer system will always be better at. A human gets distracted, doesn't have 360-degree constant vision, doesn't have thermal imaging or the ability to range-find obstacles through fog. A human can't use perfect situational awareness of obstacles and road conditions to avoid an accident. Anyway, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Google is in the data business and has a firm grasp of what they're attempting. I doubt they're going to be proven wrong.