You are missing my point here: Whether the lack of confidence outlined in my post is rational or not wasn't the point of my post at all. The lack of confidence (even if it is irrational) is something that needs to be overcome before the technology can receive wider adoption.
This is not an argument that can be easily be wiped away by a class of people who wants to believe in new technology (and profits from its potential adoption). After all from the standpoint of most untechnological people the past decade has been a one where everything they knew got shittier and less reliable while claiming to be "smart". It got even to the degree where you need to create subscriptions for basic features of your damn car, to the benefit of exactly nobody other than the shareholders.
In that climate taking the leap to trust a new technology is something you need to be willing to make. And many people aren't buying the promises. Again, whether they are right or wrong isn't the point here, but some technology is better suited for incremental safety improvements than others. E.g. nobody gives a damn about roombas falling down stairs, but if it is a damn car with their family in it they are more careful about their decision.
There are also psychological aspects that play into this. Given the choice:
A) travel inside a box that has a 10% chance to kill you and your family without you being able to influence the outcome at all
B) travel inside a box that has a 15% chance to kill you and your family, but if it happens you are at fault and you can also prevent it from happening
Most people would choose B just because the agency they have gives them a better feeling. Now granted, when we reduce the probability of A and/or increse the probability of B there will come a point where most people will flip. In the case of self driving cars this is not a out numbers, it is about perception. And the point of my post was that the perception isn't there yet.
This is not an argument that can be easily be wiped away by a class of people who wants to believe in new technology (and profits from its potential adoption). After all from the standpoint of most untechnological people the past decade has been a one where everything they knew got shittier and less reliable while claiming to be "smart". It got even to the degree where you need to create subscriptions for basic features of your damn car, to the benefit of exactly nobody other than the shareholders.
In that climate taking the leap to trust a new technology is something you need to be willing to make. And many people aren't buying the promises. Again, whether they are right or wrong isn't the point here, but some technology is better suited for incremental safety improvements than others. E.g. nobody gives a damn about roombas falling down stairs, but if it is a damn car with their family in it they are more careful about their decision.
There are also psychological aspects that play into this. Given the choice:
A) travel inside a box that has a 10% chance to kill you and your family without you being able to influence the outcome at all
B) travel inside a box that has a 15% chance to kill you and your family, but if it happens you are at fault and you can also prevent it from happening
Most people would choose B just because the agency they have gives them a better feeling. Now granted, when we reduce the probability of A and/or increse the probability of B there will come a point where most people will flip. In the case of self driving cars this is not a out numbers, it is about perception. And the point of my post was that the perception isn't there yet.