The whole utilitarian "well fewer people died" ignores the distinction between me driving recklessly and killing myself, and me driving recklessly and killing s

The whole utilitarian "well fewer people died" ignores the distinction between me driving recklessly and killing myself, and me driving recklessly and killing someone else. Blame matters. If we can decrease the negative impact on innocent bystanders, making not-at-fault fatalities decrease, I'm not sure if I can argue against it. In that case, it comes back to an old philosophical question (the trolley problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). A framing I like is as follows: "Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed." By killing one innocent, you can save many. Likewise for self-driving cars. By killing many innocents, you can save even more. If google said, "We're going to round up a bunch of people at random and murder them, but our cars will never crash," we wouldn't say "Innocent deaths have gone down and so it's acceptable." But if the same people died via malfunctions and chance, our response might change. The trolley problem isn't very palatable, but we'll need to collectively answer it.