The reasoning you are using seems to be popular - I found something similar on a page about Waymo. If an autonomous driving system clearly prevented or would h

The reasoning you are using seems to be popular - I found something similar on a page about Waymo. If an autonomous driving system clearly prevented or would have prevented a crash that happened to a human, then that's one life saved, is the philosophy. The minimum benefit from everyone using the system is at least one life. But some people do not see it that way. So you are probably at cross purposes with them. I'm sure the skeptics understand there is evidence for what you think proves mitigation - just not for what they think would prove it. I haven't got what it takes right now to describe at length the alternative way of looking at things, plus I could have it (or phrase it) wrong. Maybe someone else will comment.