This is kind of a classic misinformation pattern to present contrasting view points side by side as if they are an order of magnitude as common. similar thing used to happen in climate change discussions where an actual scientist would be expected to debate some random guy under the pretense of neutrality. The article goes out of its way to claim that statistics can’t really capture the lived experience (which they don’t even bother to include any actual figures as some kind of insult to their reader’s intelligence). I personally had a cat killed by a human driven car (20 years ago but why not). I personally have been hit by human driven cars (before Waymo existed but still happened). Both incidents are on the rare side. Cars are fundamentally dangerous. But we could pull up the actual vehicle-mile statistics and make a honest comparison instead of going round and round about opinions.
I don't feel this way at all. I think you are reading it through the lens of your own personal feelings about Waymo.
I think the article is trying really hard to present a mix of positives and negatives, a "balanced" perspective. Things like talking about how some women feel safer without having to worry about a driver (positive), yet sharing a story of a woman who felt less safe from her fellow passenger because there was no driver (negative). Mentioning the story of the cat that was killed in SF (negative), but also mentioning that human drivers kill a great deal of cats too (positive, in a sense). And so on.