Re: Who cares....
"the woman and bicycle were clearly in the wrong"
*sarcasm* Obviously deserved a death sentence then. */sarcasm*
In order to assert that accidents of that type must happen all the time, you have to ascertain how may incidents of that type don't become accidents of that type due to the presence and active response of a reasonably vigilant driver.
It would be impossible to prove beyond any doubt that had the driver been paying attention, the outcome of the event would have been different. It is similarly impossible to prove that it wouldn't have been any different.
It would be even harder to determine if the the driver HAD been paying attention that they would have taken action to avoid the outcome, seeing as though they were in a vehicle that supposedly would avoid such incidents of its own volition. In a way, I wish that this was in fact the case being tested. This will be an easy one... she wasn't paying attention, she didn't see the woman, she's liable. The harder case, and the one that puts the ball firmly in the court of the developer, is if the driver HAD seen the woman but the vehicle's control system either hadn't the sensor data to label it or if it had, that the vehicle's system would have taken avoidance action about it. How's a supervising driver supposed to know if something has been detected or not and if it has, how has it been classified? It's all well and good showing these videos of objects with green cuboids around them and vector arrows attached to them, but these aren't displayed in the vehicle, are they?! Superimposed over all the windows to show what the vehicle's view of the world is? We don't get to see a stream of machine code down the side labelling the possible responses and highlighting the selected response.