A key distinction is that you can hold human drivers accountable and bring them to court. But nobody wants to die because of a glitch.

That's an interesting comparison and something I've wondered about quite a bit. I would be surprised if machine drivers were not categorically safer than human ones, and if safety is (rightly) a priority in the cost-benefit analysis of driverless car adoption, then it's hard to imagine not concluding that we ought to proceed in that direction.

But I think this specific incident illustrates very well that the human vs. machine driver debate is tragically myopic. If an infallible machine driver adhering perfectly to traffic laws is empowered to accelerate from a standstill directly into a violent collision with a pedestrian, then maybe it doesn't matter how "safe" the driver is. I take it as evidence that car travel the way we have it set up is inherently unsafe. Our traffic laws emphasize the convenience of car traffic above everything else -- including safety -- and only really serve to shift blame when something goes wrong. Despite its certainty, there is very little builtin allowance for human error aside from the begrudging mercy of other parties.

To be fair, human drivers are an unmitigated disaster which we really need to do something about, but I think if we're going to go through the messy process of reforming how we think about cars, we might as well go farther than a marginal improvement. We could solve the underlying problem and abolish the institution of car dependency altogether, for instance. Otherwise it just amounts to slapping a futuristic band-aid on a set of social and economic issues that will continue to cause unimaginable harm.

How do you intend to inject nuance of all things when you haven't even bothered to read the article. Honestly.