A car driving around with no human inside poses less risk to human life than a car driving around with a human inside who is unable to control the car.

That's a carefully parsed statement -- less risk. True.

But I don't think that we're cool with the idea that because the number of humans threatened by an accident is reduced by somewhere between 50 and 20%, it's okay for flagrantly unsafe cars to be on the road.

You are clearly not a pedestrian or cyclist in a major city.

I wouldn't be surprised if driverless cars were way more secure for pedestrians and cyclists.

It's really difficult to keep track of pedestrians and cyclists when driving, whereas a driverless car has 360° nightvision.

Eventually, it might be. However just because the car has better sensors doesn't mean it will react better than a human would with less information.

> a human would with less information.

I'm arguing for the case where the human as NO information.

Let's say, there's a bicycle/motorbike somewhat behind your cars.

For a human driver, it can be seen in only one of the 3 rear mirrors at any point in time. Unless it's slightly behind-left or behind-right (e.g. to take over) in which case it's in the dead angle and can't be seen at all.

By turning his head and using the mirrors, a human cannot see most of the 360° around a car. There are obstructed angles, not to mention that the human can only look toward one direction at once.

The self driving cars with 360° vision can see things that a human couldn't. It has a chance to react where the human didn't.

No, but it also doesn't mean it won't react better. Are you presenting an argument here?

Sensor quality shouldn't be used to justify driverless cars being safer than a regular person driving a car. It's useless unless the car can actually use it to make a better decision than a human.

But...the other drivers on the road?