[jqpabc123]

When a rollercoaster crashes who takes legal responsibility?

Typically not the manufacturer. Because a roller coaster operates in a fixed and controlled environment within which it's design can usually be shown to be inherently safe.

The same can not be said for a "self driving" auto.

Given the current state of technology, one could make a convincing legal argument in many jurisdictions that just marketing an auto as "self driving" is itself a deceptive and inherently negligent act.

[Closi]

I don't buy the idea that in a world where self-driving cars are safer, we should have 'less safe' human drivers just because we can blame them when they kill someone.

Car manufacturers shouldn't have to show something is perfectly safe, and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe (e.g. as safe or safer than a human driver in the same condition).

There isn't a requirement that someone has to take legal responsibility for every accident that happens in the world, just that people act with reasonable care and attention within the law.

[jqpabc123]

and IMO they should just have to show that something is reasonably safe

As it currently exists, it would probably be much easier to show that "self driving" is reasonably unsafe --- e.g. less safe than the average human driver.