> if SDCs are even just as safe as HDCs, I'm good You might be a safer driver than the average human driver, in which case a SDC increases risk for you persona

> if SDCs are even just as safe as HDCs, I'm good You might be a safer driver than the average human driver, in which case a SDC increases risk for you personally (and overall, in case the less safe drivers keep using non-SDCs). In that regard, we should wait until SDCs are safer than almost all human drivers. Most drivers believe to be above average drivers, which is of course impossible. But there might be interesting correlations, for example with social status. Lower social status does disadvantage people in many regards. I am sure that insurance companies have data on the question if they have more (fatal) crashes as well. And it does stand to reason that people with higher social status drive newer and better cars as well, so we could end up with a situation where the better drivers are replaced by computers before the worse drivers. Interestingly, I think an ethics committee said a few years ago that once SDCs are safer than human drivers, it becomes a moral imperative to outlaw non-SDCs. I am wondering, if they will explore the human driving safety 'distribution' before inacting such rules. Waiting for the 5x margin could solve that problem, because then you will probably have SDCs that are safer than almost all human drivers, and it could be an incentive for companies working on the technology to get to that level faster, than they would in case they start selling them en masse earlier.