> You named one, injuries. Can you really not think of more? No, I can't - I said injuries and deaths. Those are the factors I think we should use to determine

> You named one, injuries. Can you really not think of more? No, I can't - I said injuries and deaths. Those are the factors I think we should use to determine if these cars are legal. You said we should consider other factors, then when asked you cited one of my factors instead of other factors then asked me to give you examples of other things. If you think there are other factors to be taken into account, say what they are. > And I'll note you conveniently skipped over the case where car companies just skipped over worrying about the dog at all because it allowed them to "increase shareholder value". What are you talking about? The main thrust of complaints about self-driving cars is that they block traffic because they stop when they're not sure what to do. It's literally the opposite of the problem you're describing. You're just making things up and then saying complete nonsense like this. We should decide whether self-driving cars are legal based on whether or not they make the world safer. That's my stance. Yours seems to be unserious, incoherent nonsense.