Which can't ever happen with AI driving. That's a huge sales pitch to consumers in itself without even having to wait for the data.
>Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Wrong!
>A: What is carried over from the previous Tacoma in this new truck?
>S: Not much. Maybe a seatbelt bracket! The base frame has been modified. The base frame rail design is similar but it’s not carryover. The body shell and body structure are new. For the structure, we use hot-stamped steel.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/q-a-with-2016-toyota-tacom...
If that's a slight update new models of autonomous cars can also be slight updates.
Average consumers aren't sitting around arguing statistics either. They will be marketed as safer. It's plain to see how autonomous cars will be safer in many respects already (Drunk driving or distracted driving for example). The convenience factor is by far the biggest selling point though. Sleep/work/read on your commute! Rent your car out as an autonomous taxi to earn more cash!
Because that's what you're talking about, steering wheel-less autonomous cars. It surely isn't plain to see that they will be safer. We've already seen the first fatality on Autopilot. And I, for one, don't think these will be in the hands of consumers for at least another decade or two. Simply because of costs and liability.
>Tesla says Autopilot has been used for more than 130 million miles, noting that, on average, a fatality occurs every 94 million miles in the US and every 60 million miles worldwide. The NHTSA investigation, Tesla says, is a "preliminary evaluation" to determine if the Autopilot system was working properly, which can be a precursor to a safety action like a recall.
so according to this, autopilot is already safer than the "average" driver.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-c...
Saying "our AI avoided four potentially-fatal accidents" is also a vacuous statement, since a) you don't know whether an accident would be fatal or not, since accidents are ridiculously chaotic systems and b) there is no way to say that a human driver would not also have avoided all those accidents.
In fact, most accidents are caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or falling asleep, or being on their phones. Using AI to detect and deny these people from driving would be orders of magnitude easier than autonomous cars, and provide 95% of the potential safety increase with none of the drawbacks. Why don't we do that? Consumer backlash is the answer. Even alcohol-preventing locks, mature tech today, is not being made mandatory because consumers would be mad.
I agree that brand reputation matters a lot. But people think we are going to see huge paradigm shifts in autonomous driving over the next ten years, and then your track record is for something completely different. Meanwhile the Tacoma is just a slight update and restyling of mature technology.
Adding to this is the fact that one freak accident will completely shatter a company's records. Imagine if a Tesla with next-gen Autopilot filled with seven passengers is driving through the Alps in October at 2°C: while the car is inside a tunnel, subcooled rain starts falling, covering the road in an invisible layer of super slippery ice. (This actually happens). The car goes off a cliff and kills all seven. Yes it's far-fetched, sure. But it will still be seven fatalities caused while the AI was driving, and that suddenly puts the AI car on par with a 2002 Honda Civic.