[idopmstuff]

> This is the equivalent of saying, we need strong protections on the Internet, because child pornography exists

It's not remotely like saying this, and going straight to child pornography in is like going straight to the Nazis - the sign of an unserious argument.

> It’s not an actual argument because it doesn’t have specific measurable distinctions between deaths related to driverless vehicles versus driver vehicles

You're just not understanding the definition of the word argument if you think this is true. Also, these things are being measured, so we're getting to this understanding. If your argument is that we shouldn't put robotaxis on the road because we don't know if they're safer means that we can't measure if robotaxis are safer and thus regardless of their relative safety, we must ban them because we don't have measurements yet.

> I suspect that is actually a much bigger problem than the theoretical reduction in fatalities on roads

But that's not an actual argument because it doesn't have specific, measurable distinctions, no?