Argument-by-consequences that because a small fraction of human drivers are bad, reckless or criminally irresponsible, that all the rest of us should accept autonomous cars without restrictions, and totally not even discuss the boatload of obvious negative (and permanent) socieoeconomic consequences that creates.

We could make the same argument about trucks, or phones, or computers, or knives.

And the comment "But I can’t help but think that if all of the cars involved had been driven by Waymos, none of these collisions would have occurred." isn't as profound as it wants to be, because there won't be one autonomous car manufacturer, there'll be N, and thus at minimum N*(N-1) ways any 2-car interaction could happen that can't be designed for, before we even factor in other road users.

Agreed, the insurer data show Waymos are safer than Teslas or autonomous Ubers.

Anyway, in reality we'll end up somewhere between the extremes of Hawley's proposed total ban or zero restrictions. Hawley is negotiating.

Read the Hawley bill as a split in MAGA between corporatist and populist factions.

Remember also how the Biden admin banned the 2022 freight rail strike [0] protesting safety and staffing cuts in favor of profitability, which then gave us the 2023 Ohio train derailment.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_la...