Really, you are arguing that I get to kill 1645 in the UK before I have to show any scientifically rigorous evidence? I get to do 1645 drives and kill the passe

Really, you are arguing that I get to kill 1645 in the UK before I have to show any scientifically rigorous evidence? I get to do 1645 drives and kill the passenger every time before anybody cares? That is not only insane, but empirically false in the USA as people cared very greatly about Cruise injuring people during the development process. You have to be answering the question: “Assuming we already know for a fact that the technology is safer than a human driver, then, if scaled to all drives, how many can die annually and still be morally justifiable?” My question is: “How many do I get to kill before I need to figure out if I am killing fewer people?” That is the basic question to be asked during the development process of any unproven dangerous technology to minimize sacrifices to technological dead ends.