> I'm not comfortable with dying or being injured due to a software error regardless of whether its likelihood is higher or lower.
Why on earth is dying due to a software error worse than dying due to a human error if you can chose one or the other, and the chance of a software error is lower?
Individual odds of being in an accident may be lower than the average. Software for all of the cars would be approximately the same, so the chances of being in an accident could increase for extremely cautious drivers. I doubt they would, personally, but it would be an argument against adoption until the cars are demonstrably safer than possible with human drivers.
If the chance of an accident increases then sure, be against that. And I've no idea what the chances are. But to say you'd rather have a higher chance of dying from human error than lower chance of dying from software error... doesn't make any sense.
Why on earth is dying due to a software error worse than dying due to a human error if you can chose one or the other, and the chance of a software error is lower?