Yes and also there are a great many situations where the car should stop. I'll I'm saying is that I don't trust a large corporation to make a reasonable determination, yet they don't seem to be talking about it.

This doesn't change the argument. You just have to prove they are culpable. That would be very simple, just ask a self driving exec if he can guarantee his cars won't kill anyone. He cannot, therefore he is culpable.

But now you have the choice to behave differently if you want to. That's all that matters.

So I guess the comment about flying was sarcasm. I didn't think the UK was that big.

Except if it can be proven they didnt make a human attempt to stop then it is intent.

That's not true. If there was intent then they are responsible for the medical bills of the dog. And "we don't know what it will do" is not a defence Designing a car to drive itself and then not knowing what will happen is criminal negligence.

Are there no signs at the beach indicating swim at your own risk? Is there a sign on the car letting everyone know they are in the vicinity of the car at their own risk?

It's intent unless the car did everything that a human would have done to stop. Putting a car on the road knowing that the way you designed it may cause it to hit people or animals is the very definition of intent.

Many millions of those miles are on roads that never have animals on them.

And the reason is probably because there is a wealthy company trying to sell something.

I'd just like to know what the car does if it could have saved the dog but it has to slam on the brakes hard to do it. As a human I'm watching my rear view mirror and already know how close the person is behind me and slam on my brakes as hard as I can to save the animal since generally there is no one tailgating and if they hit me it is their fault anyway. I'm concerned an automated car would not stop in that situation because it would make the ride 'unpleasant' for occupants. The life of an animal should come before comfort for people. The engineers of these cars surely know the answer already. The fact that they aren't saying it probably confirms my fears.

You shouldn't worry about getting rear ended. That's the worry of the person behind you. It's their fault if you get rear ended.

I find it such a hypocrisy. They tout how safe these cars are and then they compare them to drunk and tired drivers to prove their point.

There aren't even lakes in the UK? Wow that's sad.

There aren't even lakes in the UK? Wow, that's sad.