And I was meaning to circle back again to the comparison of incidents and crashes with or without computer assistance but got derailed. =) If we then figure th

And I was meaning to circle back again to the comparison of incidents and crashes with or without computer assistance but got derailed. =) If we then figure that we are in the situation where those who decide are balancing between X% fatalities per year when people drive like they do currently, why would it be controversial to allow FSD or other similar techniques to have the same or lower rate of crashes? I'm not buying into Teslas own statistics on crashes per km/mile because lying with statistics is kind of easy, but lets pretend one or all car manufacturers manage to get cars to have 0.4% crash rate per year when people have 0.5%, why would anyone then want to prevent people from using FSD? Why would we apply a different set of standards for one "type" of driver and not the other? And if we were to apply different standards, which might be reasonable, why would we not choose the "safer" one? Not claiming we necessarily are at a place where computer assisted driving is demonstrably safer, but when we actually can prove it is even just a tenth percent better, by that time I think we should have an answer for this question.