On a per-mile-driven basis, Tesla's self-driving accident rate is somewhere in the region of 5-10× that of human drivers, IIRC. And keep in mind that the self-driving here is already in a state of selection bias where it's more likely to be used in safer conditions (i.e., fully-grade-separated highway driving in clear conditions, rather than dense urban environments in inclement weather).

It's funny how people ignoring regulation, that developed during decades for very valid reasons, usually do so to further businesses and projects that benefit greatly by doing so. Tesla is one example when it comes to self-driving, Uber another one when it come to the Taxi business. All for the greater good of course.

> If Tesla solves driving it will lead to tens of thousands of lives saved a year.

That’s a big if. If we solved aging, we’d save nearly all lives, so please don’t regulate my medical practice. I expect to have aging solved and millions of treatments rolled out by 2020.

If new technology X saves 100 lives for each person it kills, it will be banned.

Because the dead person has a name, a tragic story, and grieving relatives, which will make the news.

The 100 saved people are anonymous, don't know they were saved by X, and this will be unreported outside of obscure research journals.

Are in favour of medical experiments on random strangers?

The same argument applies - sorry you died, but the data might save someone else's life down the line.

A lot of unique medical data was produced by Nazis doing cruel experiments on people.

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/learn-from-nazi-medical-res...