You can’t take one accident and use that to generalize.
You need to take into account all accidents and see how worse humans are.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/human-drivers-crash-a-lot-more-than-waymos-software-data-shows/
Cars are naturally dangerous. A robot car is going to have deaths no matter what. That does not mean they are bad if they mean a reduction of cars and accidents. Taxis if done properly can help a public transport system.
They gave them a birth control shot without properly informing them of what it was. Still scandalous, but not what you are saying.
That’s not exactly true. If you make parmigiano you have to follow pretty strict manufacturing procedures to ensure that the cheeses have the same taste.
It’s pretty much the same thing as a brand except it’s not produced by one structure but several independent structures. The main advantage is that you know what you are getting.
Most surprisingly, the inspectors observed barefoot employees working in a sterile area of the facility, where they should have been wearing shoes—plus gowns, gloves, and shoe booties. (The barefoot workers were also not wearing gowns or gloves.) A production manager puzzlingly told FDA inspectors that shoeless work is “standard practice.”
They were supposed to cover everything including the feet.
I don’t agree. Curvy roads are dangerous, but there are much more conflicts in cities. You’re not going to have many pedestrians in curvy mountain roads.
That said, you are right that the ideal comparison would be int the same city. But I’m not sure that the data exists, I’ll have to look this afternoon.
That said, even if my data is not perfect, it’s much better than taking one accident and saying that self driving cars are dangerous. They are not going to be magically better than humans, after all driving is a difficult task, but we should at least crunch the numbers before dismissing them.