That said, I would expect a San Fransisco decision to be based upon San Francisco data.
But of course, things change.
It's like saying you tested your multi-platform app for 10,000 hours, but 9,800 of those hours were on Windows.
As for the unlikely terrorist bit, just in case you weren't around when 911 happened: even mathematically inclined people were shocked. Not only was it the most lethal attack on American soil (nearly 3,000 dead), it was a foreign attack. People genuinely didn't know what was going to happen and were living in fear for a while. Unfortunately, some people still carry those fears to this day. Even though the numbers don't back them up, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their emotions and I certainly wouldn't attack them for the all too human mistake of misattributing risk.
That is not to say that safe testing can not proceed or that they are being unsafe in their testing or validation process, but it is important to realize the actual magnitude of the status quo and what we are comparing against. People are bad with numbers.
[1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... PDF Page 7
Cars kill about as many Americans as the Vietnam War, but every year. Aside from guns, I can't think of anything else so deadly that we give to our children as they enter adulthood.
It is common, it is not part of the news cycle. We care more about the unlikely terrorist. People are bad with numbers.
Personally, I think it would a huge ethics violation to not be running tests of autonomous cars (not talking Telsa toy driving stuff).