Obviously so, and this doesn't contradict anything I said. But the types of people who work on AVs are quantitative enough to understand that these magnitudes can differ, and are able to process that difference instead of waving them away as "both dangerous" and sticking with the status quo out of blind habit.
Almost literally every decision trades off one danger for another: to pick an adjacent example, airbags introduce dangers that are different from the ones they solve. And yet, "airbags have dangers! Take them out of your car" is a woefully incomplete understanding of the risk landscape, driven more by our Neanderthal brain's superstition than our Homo Sapiens reasoning about risk.
That sort of magical thinking is a hurdle that every shift in the risk landscape needs to overcome ("what if vaccines have microchips in them??").
This is, of course, dependent on actual comparative safety stats, but I've yet to hear a safety argument against taking a Waymo ride over an Uber in Chandler[1]. If the same level of transparency and rigor is used in more complex environments, I'd take a cruise/waymo car in sf too (once they launch).
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2020/10/30/waymo-...
