Using that math it would be better if they were faster even if they killed somebody.

That's a repulsive argument... Just because some argument is logically sound doesn't mean it's rational or reasonable.

Also, when attempting that math, make sure you account for the buffer that everyone already builds into their life. No sense in double counting the extra 10m I'm angry in traffic, instead of angry sitting at home because I'm doom scrolling some media feed with that extra 10m I saved because the robotaxi was faster.

I mean, we would all save lives if we just never used a car outside of medical emergencies, but we do, so clearly there's some time/risk tradeoff that's happening.

Your naive feel good attitude (and you're not alone in it, that crap permeates white collar western society) is exactly the problem and being all emotional about it only worsens your ability to reason about it.

Whenever we do something "good" at societal scale be it build ADA ramps or engage in international trade of consumer goods or in this case, have transportation infrastructure, there is always some tradeoff like this. We can either do the thing in a safer to life and limb manner, but that almost always has tradeoffs that make the thing less accessible or worse performing. We could have absurdly low maximum vehicle speeds, that would save lives, but the time and wealth (which are convertible to each other on some level) renders the tradeoff not worth it (to the public at large).

You can value a whole life loss higher than man hours. You can value a child more than the elderly. You can make all sorts of adjustments like that but they do not change the fundamental math of the problem.

> Your naive feel good attitude (and you're not alone in it, that crap permeates white collar western society) is exactly the problem and being all emotional about it only worsens your ability to reason about it.

It's not a feel good attitude. I'm only objecting to your shallow take arguing that the commoditization of human life is reasonable. (i.e. touch grass) Similar to how you're concerned, exclusively, with the numbers you think you can count. That attitude of dehumanization has never resulted in good things things for society and humanity. That's the trade off I'm suggesting is important to consider when trying to make up numbers as you are. I'm not arguing that an absurdly low max speed is better. I'm arguing that it's small minded to try to count like that.

> You can value a whole life loss higher than man hours. You can value a child more than the elderly. You can make all sorts of adjustments like that but they do not change the fundamental math of the problem.

I wouldn't make any adjustments like that. The value or importance that exists with a human life, the case example, being a person that cares for others, and is cared about by others. Can't be reduced into a value that's translatable to man hours. I'd trade hours with some people for minutes with others. Just because time is something you can quantify, and you like that you can count it. Doesn't make it more better or important.

To be clear, I'm not saying your math is wrong, I'm saying you're wrong to believe it applies. (in such a simplistic manner.) You can use the math to decide how you're going to make tradeoffs given known input values; how much can my city pay for safety equipment to protect people. But you can't make up some adjacent math and say, this car's design is wrong because it didn't kill the correct number of people... err I mean, the correct number of man hours.