I fixed this for you: ____ Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a typical driver to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time no

I fixed this for you: ____ Ignorant? I think not. I do not want to trust a typical driver to see me, identify me, and stop a vehicle doing 100+ kph in time not to kill me. Would anyone here be willing to stand on a road with their backs to an oncoming car with human supervision? Thousands of times. In all weather conditions. When the driver's credentials and eyeglass prescription are 5/10/25 years out of date? That's what motorcyclists must do at every red light: trust that the car approaching behind them stops in time. ____ Personally. As soon as computers can be proven to have a catastrophic error rate lower than human drivers, statistically, I'm all for it. From there, it can only get better. And in case it isn't obvious, my point is your argument didn't really have anything specific to machine vs human driver. It's essentially saying "I don't trust robots, because they aren't humans." The only thing that should really matter is results, and that will only be determined by testing and comparing.