> you should check the autopilot against a rested and concentrated driver that drives slowly and with a lot of care You raise an interesting point, accidents a

> you should check the autopilot against a rested and concentrated driver that drives slowly and with a lot of care You raise an interesting point, accidents are not normally distributed throughout the driver's day, or even the population. Your likelihood of having a crash with injuries is highly correlated with whether or not you've had one before. A substantial number involve alcohol, consumed by drivers previously cited for DUIs. We keep using average crash statistics for humans as a baseline, but that may be misleading. Some drivers may actually be increasing their risk by moving to first gen self driving technology, even while others reduce their risk. On the other hand, we do face a real Hindenburg threat here. Zeppelins flew thousands of miles safely, and even on that disaster, many survived. But all people could think of when boarding an airship after that was Herbert Morrison's voice and flames. I have already heard people who don't work in technology mumbling about how they think computers are far more dangerous than humans (not because of your nuanced distinction, but simply ignoring or unaware of any statistics). I worry we're only a few high profile accidents away from total bans on driverless cars, at least in some states. Especially if every one of these is going to make great press, while almost no pure human accidents will. The availability heuristic alone will confuse people.