No, this is not equivalent to the risk of existing manufacturing defects in cars. Car bodies undergo safety tests by the government; the software for these self-driving cars is being tested on public streets. Same with buildings, which must be inspected.

As the GP states, the entire reason Uber is testing in Arizona is because their state government completely got rid of reporting regulations which were present in CA; the status quo is decidedly not the same as it is for established technologies.

As for scale, look at the other comments where people analyze the risk posed by self driving cars. Your assumption that the risk of death from self-driving cars is less is not backed up by the evidence.

It’s fine to say that self-driving cars might eventually be better drivers than humans, just like robots might eventually be better at conversing than humans.

There is no reason self-driving cars can’t be be tested in private. Uber can hire pedestrians to interact with them—I don’t volunteer to be their test subject by deciding to take a walk.

First you started by claiming the difference was due to scale and choice. You're now retreating to a third distinction: the difference between established technology and experimental technology. Well, all established technology was experimental technology at one point, and it was not uniformly regulated. We could play this game all day.

Self-driving cars are a new and important industrial development that will require adjustments to policy. They don't require revolutionary new legal principles.