You're just doubling down on very poor reasoning. Collision avoidance can fail 50% of the time and still result in a massive 50% reduction in accidents. Whereas

You're just doubling down on very poor reasoning. Collision avoidance can fail 50% of the time and still result in a massive 50% reduction in accidents. Whereas if autosteer fails 50% of the time while seducing drivers into paying less attention, it's going to increase the accident rate. It is not the underlying technologies that matters here, it's the fundamentally different use cases and compares. > I have a hard time imagining that the automatic breaking has surpassed the rest of the industry to a large enough extent that could make up for the autosteering being as dangerous as you are suggesting. This is another comprehension error. You claim was "autosteering at worst had no effect on the accident rate." Thus any increase in the accident rate caused by autosteering, not merely a "large" one, would invalidate your claim.