> we anticipate that the number of people killed will be fewer, hence 'saving lives'. However, the lives lost in autonomous accidents will be a different set of

> we anticipate that the number of people killed will be fewer, hence 'saving lives'. However, the lives lost in autonomous accidents will be a different set of people than those that would have died in human driven accidents. There will be cases where a court determines that the autonomous system was the cause. Families of those killed will want justice, while those separately saved by autonomous systems may never be heard from in the same case. This reasoning was addressed with the VICP program for vaccines in the U.S., based on the idea that vaccines save many lives overall, but still injure a small number of people who will want to be compensated for that injury. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html Maybe there should be a self-driving-car injury compensation program along similar lines once particular cars are convincingly proven to be even moderately safer than human drivers. People might be mad about it, but maybe the precedent of the apparent success of the VICP would be persuasive (at least for courts and legislators, and maybe for some people actually injured by self-driving cars). A counterargument is that vaccine injuries are generally unforeseeable and reflect absolutely no fault on the part of the injured person (or injured person's guardian), while some people injured by self-driving cars will bear some fault for their own injuries, which insurers or manufacturers might well want the opportunity to adjudicate. (Otherwise, there could be a perverse incentive to deliberately do dangerous things around self-driving cars to provoke an injury and receive a payment, something I've heard already sometimes happens with personal injury claims against human drivers in some parts of the world.)