As for your question, you basically destroyed the conversation when you asked "Is your family an acceptable casualty?" If you just wanted numbers, you shouldn't have made it personal like that. That's all my point is here.
This is a really fair point but I also don't think it's a bad thing to say this. I think people distance themselves from possible problems by calling things a numbers game but they don't factor in the fact that they could be part of those numbers.
If I say that 27000 people per year die from listening to Mambo Number 5 then I say that we can lower that to 15 if we remix it to take out the deadly frequency but we will have to test it on 20 people to find which is the deadly frequency for sure. That sounds great. A couple people might die but what's that to save 27000/year?
Well, take that and say we will have to test it on 20 people and 5 of those will be your family. That makes the decision a lot harder. Logically it's exactly the same but emotionally instead of "people" it's 15 "people" and 5 of your family.
So, it's important to mention it could be your family because if someone was alright with it because they are looking at the pure numbers, they should be brought back to the reality that we all actually live in a little.
I guess this all boils down to what you think of the Trolley Problem. I'm one of those who say, yes, of course you pull the lever if you have no way to save everybody, it's obviously better.
Is that reduction a result of self driving or advances in other safety (airbags, seat-belts, crumple zones)?
It is clear that your mind is already made up and that you are a self driving car evangelist. Please endeavor to approach these debates with an open mind and in good faith.