Are you making accusations in question form so you don't have to back them up? I certainly didn't say that.
> Why can't they fabricate some tests that demonstrate their safety in a controlled environment first?
Are you assuming they haven't done this?
> I'm not saying that autonomous vehicles are safer, I'm saying this isn't evidence that autonomous vehicles are less safe.
It's true that we need to wait for more information about this particular incident -- which is exactly the caveat that the commenter you initially responded to had said [0]. But assuming the facts aren't abnormally different than what they seem to be -- an Uber AV hit and killed a jaywalker, how is that not evidence toward the argument that AVs are less safe? It obviously isn't conclusive evidence. But if Uber goes on to kill a pedestrian for every million miles driven, this first data point would surely be part of the empirical evidence, no?
Nope, I'm just having trouble grokking your argument and I thought that might be it. It's true I added a rhetorical edge to the language that was probably unnecessary. I apologize for that--I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. What is your argument?