I think that line of reasoning would only apply if the driverless vehicles are not better than human drivers. That is to say, it's perfectly reasonable that bike commuters would die as the software is improved as long as less bike commuters are die than would without the driverless cars.

To be clear, I don't know that I necessarily think that driverless cars currently are better than human drivers. I'm just pointing out that the logic changes if they are.

Logic and morality are on two separate paths. IF the driverless car decides to kill your daughter because saving a van full of refugees was for the greater good, then it wouldn't be a question of what was "better," it would be a question of what was "righteous." In this hypothetical scenario, logically it would make sense to kill your daughter and apparently you're completely comfortable with amoral constructs making this decision on your behalf.

Fortunately we don't have to ponder such philosophical dilemmas while the current iteration of so-called "driverless" vehicles are `developmentally delayed` to put it lightly. But I guess a few bruised-up bike commuters are considered "acceptable loss" along the way to real progess (which is surely coming soon, surely)

How many cyclists are hit per million Uber rides?

We get run over with or without driverless cars, but driverless cars do it an awful lot less and will keep getting better at it.

Then by that logic the software engineers should be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter when their beta test kills someone.

I don't follow your logic