I mean if the kids are in the bushes I'm not sure a human would be able to figure that out either. It's been said before: self driving cars don't have to be perfect, just better than humans. And humans are super flawed.

The US has about 100 million miles driven per traffic fatality.

Humans are flawed but human drivers are way safer than the human detractors would have you think.

Human drivers "can" be way safer; they aren't always. There's likely some balance where overall, self driving is statistically safer than some group of suboptimal drivers. It remains to be seen but there's always hope.

Unless the unsafe parts of self driving only apply to previously unsafe drivers it will still struggle to take off.

Not every human driver has the same risk, but every self driving car will. (Or it will be based on which car you are in rather than how safe you are.) In other words, relatively safe human drivers could actually see their risk levels go up in a self driving car, even it if it statistically safer than all human drivers.

You can't make that assumption when Tesla FSD won't even engage except in the "easy" situations.

Could you clarify what interactions that figure includes? I.e. is it fatalities for people inside motorized vehicles, or does it include something like a car-bicycle accident?

Motor vehicle fatality statistics in the USA includes pedestrians and bicyclists struck by a car.

Well, for PR purposes, they might have to be substantially better than humans, or the backlash to incidents might be too great.

> That’s a very hard task to deal with.

Not really though, you could just assume there are kids and do 15mph. Not everything is a hard to solve machine learning challenge.

So many ifs. Look, even if you pass the school zone, kids play around. In rural areas, this is very common. Yeah, you could go at the speed limit, but people are just careful or make a judgment call.