> ok, controversial counterpoint: maybe some number of deaths is worth it. Not if you wish to win the hearts and minds of the general population at large. As

> ok, controversial counterpoint: maybe some number of deaths is worth it. Not if you wish to win the hearts and minds of the general population at large. As grandparent points out, the coverage seems disproportionate, but that's because it interest people, and they are generally sceptical of letting computers drive their cars. While technically unrelated, the Boeing 737 MAX MCAS scandal hasn't done much good either for the further automation of transport systems. People dying at the 'hands' of AVs will lead to pushback from the general population, and political points can be scored by siding with this view, leading to tigther regulation if not an outright ban some places on AVs. The real question is; will either the slow and thorough approach or the quick and dirty approach roll out larger AV fleets faster than the other? In any case, it'll probably be decades, before there are significant AV fleets.