If technology is required to be 100% safe under all circumstances, then why aren't humans held to the same standard? For humans, we have a driving test that mea

If technology is required to be 100% safe under all circumstances, then why aren't humans held to the same standard? For humans, we have a driving test that measures readiness for driving. It includes a margin of error for new drivers and there's also an expectation new drivers suck more than experienced ones (e.g., indirectly via higher insurance rates). I'm having a hard time understanding your position as to why the technology should not be allowed, even if it were to perform statistically better than humans. Is this more of a philosophical perspective?