Here's the thing: the data tracking and reporting truthful information is skewed to the degree of vaccines. You'd think the same people invested. The numbers and data above are false on accidents. This is just a portion:

A Google self-driving car caused a crash for the first time (2016)
https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report
Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe
Self-driving car injures motorcyclist in Haight https://sf.curbed.com/2017/12/21/16805260/gm-cruise-accident-injury-san-francisco
Blame game: Self-driving car crash highlights tricky legal question http://bayareane.ws/2BnGZ1b

We cannot avoid AI. That does not make it just something that needs to be accepted without specific terms of use and protections because "progress" or "evolution". Beating AI is possible if a glitch occurs but only if its proliferation is controlled and products tested. If all products become "smart" its network becomes bigger than that of humans: its a problem. Not just due to AI *malfunction but human use to target and then avoid detection. It can be hacked for example. So an AI care or any car with a *chip can be remotely hacked, this has been known since 2013. It came up after Journalist Micheal Hastings death and revisited during Paul Walker death.

Hackers Reveal Nasty New Car Attacks--With Me Behind The Wheel (Video) http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/#7eb97e61228c

Top 10 Ways to Hack Your Car http://lifehacker.com/top-10-ways-to-hack-your-car-511917137

Hence electronic warfare with physical consequences takes on new level. Careful at whats sitting in peripheral. I am just applying logic.